Disposed

Mr Zakir Hussain v. the Commissioner for Collegiate

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023WP/13150/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired professor filed a writ petition challenging the recovery of Rs. 2,13,768 plus interest from his terminal benefits for salary paid during deputation for Ph.D. studies which were not completed due to lack of examinations. The court held the recovery of the principal sum was justified but barred the interest claim due to excessive delay, and directed the State to release withheld retirement

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to pay the sum of Rs. 2,13,768 plus interest component withheld, and to release pending pension and gratuity within one month.

Mr Zakir Hussain Vs the Commissioner for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.13150 OF 2013 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (RETD), DEPARTMENT OF URDU, AL-AMEEN ARTS, SCIENCE & COMMERCE COLLEGE HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 R/O. 21, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BANGALORE REGION, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

AL-AMEEN EDUCATION SOCIETY AL-AMEEN CAMPUS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶17

HOSUR ROAD,, (NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE) BANGALORE-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY.

¶18

THE PRINCIPAL GRADE I AL-AMEEN ARTS SCIENCE & COMMERCE COLLEGE HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶19

THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI.JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5; SRI.BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO CONCERNING & CONNECTED WITH THE LETTER DATED:7.1.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-K & LETTER DATED:7.2.2013, VIDE ANNEXURE-L, PERUSE THE SAME & DECLARE THEM IN SO FAR AS THEY INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF CONSENT FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-P, DATED. NIL AS EXPLOITATIVE AND UNAUTHORISED IN NATURE, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, while working as a Lecturer in Urdu,

¶27

was granted permission to pursue his higher studies in the field of Research leading to a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) under the F.I.P. Scheme. This permission enabled the petitioner to pursue his Ph.D. Course and during this period, he would continue to be paid his salary.

¶28

An agreement was executed by the petitioner on 29.03.1990 in this regard, whereby a term was stipulated that the petitioner should prosecute his studies diligently and in case he failed to fulfill the said condition, and if he failed to serve the Management for a period of five years after the completion of the Ph.D. degree, he would be liable to repay the full amount of expenditure incurred by the Government on account of granting him the deputation, with interest.

¶29

The petitioner was on deputation from 29.03.1990 to 29.03.1993. During this period, the petitioner contends that he had completed the Course and had requested that

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶31

an examination be fixed so that he could secure a Ph.D.

¶32

Degree, but the examination was not conducted and as a result, he could not secure his Ph.D. The petitioner submits that he re-joined the Institution on 12.07.1993 and continued to work in the Institution.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did serve the Institution thereafter, till he attained the age of superannuation.

¶34

During his service, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 19.04.2006, whereby he was called upon to show cause regarding the non-completion of his Ph.D. Course. The petitioner responded to the said show-cause notice by his letter dated 22.09.2006, wherein he stated that despite repeated requests, written examination and the viva vocé examination for his Ph.D. degree were not conducted and as a consequence, the petitioner could not submit his thesis.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶36

Pursuant to the reply, no action was taken

¶37

thereafter.

¶38

However, on 11.08.2010, the Bangalore University informed the petitioner that the Ph.D. Registration Committee had resolved that his request for submitting his Thesis was not taken up in the absence of a Guide and this was because his Ph.D. registration itself was cancelled once.

¶39

On 24.01.2012, the petitioner was issued with yet another show-cause notice, to which the petitioner once again submitted his reply dated 13.02.2012.

¶40

In this reply, as before, the petitioner stated that he could not be blamed for non-completion of Ph.D. Course because, the written examination and viva vocé were not conducted, despite several requests in this regard.

¶41

Thereafter, on 30.04.2012, the petitioner was permitted to retire as he attained the age of superannuation.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶43

Subsequently, the Director addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, whereby it was stated that for the period of deputation i.e., from 29.03.1990 to 29.03.1993, a total sum of Rs.2,13,768/- along with interest at six per cent (6%) per annum should be recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner.

¶44

Pursuant to the said letter, a communication was also addressed to the Principal of the College calling upon the College to secure a Letter of Consent from the petitioner for deduction of the said amount. Pursuant to the said communication, the College, in turn, issued a communication to the petitioner asking him to furnish his consent for recovery of the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,13,768/along with interest at 6% per annum. A reminder was also issued thereafter, by the College.

¶45

The petitioner, being aggrieved by this attempt to recover a sum of Rs.2,13,768/- along with interest at 6% per annum, is before this Court.

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶47

He contended that the said sum cannot be recovered

¶48

since the failure to secure the Ph.D. Degree could not be attributed to him. It is contended that the petitioner did pursue the Course earnestly and therefore, he had complied with the terms of the Agreement and the Agreement did not contain a stipulation that he would necessarily secure a Ph.D. Degree. It is submitted that since the securing of a Ph.D. Degree was not mandatory or a compulsory obligation, the entire attempt to recover the salary paid during his deputation period viz.,1990-93 was illegal.

¶49

It was also contended that the attempt by the State Government to recover a sum of Rs.2,13,768/-, nearly twenty years after the deputation ended, was wholly unjustified, apart from being time-barred.

¶50

Lastly, he contended that though the claim of the State Government was a sum of Rs.2,13,768/-, the entire retiral benefits of several lakhs of rupees have been wrongly withheld without any justifiable cause.

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶52

The learned counsel for the State Government, per contra, contended that the State did pay salary for three years, though the petitioner did not discharge any work as a Lecturer. It is stated that this privilege was given to the petitioner with the hope that he would secure a Ph.D. Degree and thereafter serve the Institution with his enriched knowledge, and since this obligation was not discharged by the petitioner, he was bound to make good the expenditure incurred by the State.

¶53

It is also contended that since the petitioner was due in a particular sum of money, necessarily, the interest on the said amount would also have to be paid.

¶54

In light of the arguments advanced, it is clear that the entire controversy relates to ‘ the payment of salary during the period the petitioner had been deputed to secure a Ph.D. Degree’ .

¶55

The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he did enter into an Agreement, whereby he had undertaken to

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶57

pursue the Ph.D. Course diligently and after securing the Ph.D. degree, he would serve the Institution for a period of five years thereafter.

¶58

Admittedly, though the petitioner states that he had pursued the Course diligently, the fact remains that the petitioner has not secured his Ph.D. The State, in order to enable the petitioner to secure a Ph.D. Degree, had paid him the salary to the tune of Rs.2,13,768/-, though the petitioner had not discharged any work at all.

¶59

In light of the fact that the State Government had invested in the petitioner by paying him salary when he was pursuing his higher studies, it is quite but natural that this money be reimbursed by the petitioner, especially when he was unable to secure a Ph.D. Degree.

¶60

It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner contends that he did pursue the Course diligently, but the examinations were not conducted. However, this argument could be a weak argument, since there was not only a legal but also a

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶62

moral obligation on the petitioner to ensure that he secured a Ph.D. Degree, especially when he was pursuing the Course during which he continued to earn his full salary.

¶63

The petitioner would have to, at least, bear the expenses of the Government incurred in this regard on his failure to secure his Ph.D. degree.

¶64

It is, therefore, clear that the demand of the State Government for payment of the amounts incurred during the period of deputation i.e., a sum of Rs.2,13,768/- is justified.

¶65

However, the claim of the Government that it is also entitled to recover interest at 6% on the said sum is improper and unfair.

¶66

The period of deputation of the petitioner ended in the year 1993. Till the year 2006, there was no action to recover the said sum. Even in 2006, on the petitioner giving a reply and narrating the reasons for not securing a

¶67

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶68

Ph.D. Degree, the State Government chose not to take

¶69

any action. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued for the second time in the year 2012, to which also the petitioner reiterated his earlier reply.

¶70

It is, therefore, clear that for a period of nearly 19 years, the State Government did not choose to enforce the terms of the contract.

¶71

In light of this particular fact, the claim of the State Government for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.2,13,768/with interest at 6% per annum cannot be sustained.

¶72

During the course of arguments, a memo was also

¶73

filed by the State Government indicating that a total sum of Rs.6,45,580/- had been withheld from the terminal benefits of the petitioner and this includes the interest component at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶74

In light of the reasons stated above, the State Government would not be entitled to any interest on the

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:46371 WP No. 13150 of 2013

¶77

said sum of Rs.2,13,768/- and consequently, the State shall make over the interest component to the petitioner.

¶78

It is also stated that the petitioner is entitled to pension, arrears of pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity apart from the commuted value of pension.

¶79

The State Government is directed to ensure that the amounts that are due to the petitioner, apart from a sum of Rs.2,13,768/-, would be made over to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶80

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶81

SD/JUDGE

¶82

RK CT:SN

Mr Zakir Hussain v. the Commissioner for Collegiate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Zakir Hussain v. the Commissioner for Collegiate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suresh S Hampannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr N R Shivashankar Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Sri. Ashok Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C N Satheesh Vs Union of India

Smt Geethanjali Vs the State of Karnataka

V Santhosh Vs Ministry of Law and Justice