PATNA, India, Sept. 25 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 25:

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 20830 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was disposed of with liberty to file a fresh representation before the Registrar of the concerned University.

2. The case of the appellant is that the husband of the appellant joined as a Lecturer on a sanctioned post on 01.02.1981, under the constituent college of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhangha and since then, he had been continuously discharging his duties in several constituent colleges of the University. He also served as Incharge Principal of the Rishikul Bramcharya Ashram Sanskrit College Bediban, Madhuban and Sri Ram Sanskrit College Vijaypur Gopalganj. Prior to his date of retirement i.e., 30.09.2020, he sought issuance of retirement order from the Registrar (Respondent No. 4) on 23.09.2020 in terms of the UGC guidelines, and also requested for guidelines regarding handing over the charge of Incharge Principal of the concerned college. Thereafter, vide Office Order contained in Letter No. 711/2021 dated 13.04.2021, which was after the date of retirement, the Registrar (Respondent No. 4) retired him from service w.e.f. 30.09.2020, upon completion of 65 years of age. The husband of the appellant claimed difference of arrears dues on account of 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2019 as well as issuance of a no dues certificate, which was not issued to him earlier. In the meantime, the husband of the appellant died on 31.07.2021. The appellant was granted only 90% of the family pension. She requested the Respondent No. 4 to pay the retiral dues of her husband along with the differential amounts arising out of the 7th Pay Revision, but till date no such amount has been paid to her.

3. The writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was disposed of by the order impugned, with a direction to the Registrar of the University to pass a speaking and reasoned order on the representation of the appellant-petitioner regarding admissibility or non-admissibility of her grievance, within a period of six weeks.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant could not file representation before the Registrar because he had already filed a rejoinder application before the Hon'ble Writ Court, stating that the Registrar had filed false affidavit regarding payment of dues before the court despite having received the direction of the Writ Court to make the entire payment of the appellant with regard to retiral dues.

5. In light of the submissions made by the parties, the order dated 07.02.2023 stands modified with the liberty which was granted to him by the learned Single Judge. Instead of making representation to the Registrar of the University, the appellant will be at liberty to make a representation before the Vice Chancellor, who shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the said representation.

6. Accordingly, the present intra-court appeal stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.