Dismissed

Upendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 May 2014CWJC/4608/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition arguing that internal administrative inquiries and specific financial directives regarding dearness allowance are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction, especially given the change in Vice-Chancellor.

What did the court decide?

Directions were given to approach the new Vice-Chancellor regarding the inquiry; other reliefs for payment and quashing were dismissed.

Upendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4608 of 2014

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Upendra Kumar, s/o late Ram Dhyan Singh, r/o Village Bagahi, P.S. Paras Bigha, District Jhanabad, Presently posted as associate Professor at S.S.College, Jahanabad.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

2.The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.

¶8

3.The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.

¶9

4.The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.

¶10

5.The Principal and Bursar S.S. College, Jahanabad, District Jahanabad. 6.The Dean Student's Welfare Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya.

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjiv Sharan, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC-15 Ajeet Pratap Singh

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 02-05-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following reliefs:-

¶15

"(i) To quash the order dated 13.11.2013 contained in Ref no. ACC 187/13 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of Respondent no. 5, whereby petitioner has not given the remuneration related to election duty in Magadh University student Union election 2013, which is discriminatory and arbitrary.

¶16

(ii) For a direction to the respondent no. 2 to immediately take decision in accordance with law regarding the enquiry committee, which was constituted by the Magadh University vide Memo No. 06/GIA dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-9) since much time has lapsed after constitution of enquiry committee and no concrete decision has been taken till date by committee.

¶17

(iii) For a direction to the respondents to make payment of the remuneration to the petitioner for student union election, which was held on 03.02.2013 to 14.02.2013 and honorarium was fixed by Respondent No.-3 and all Principal was directed to pay honorarium from the internal resource of College.

¶18

(iv) For a direction to the respondents to release

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.4608 of 2014 (3) dt.02-05-2014

¶20

¶21

the full dearness allowance to the petitioner as per the direction of the University."

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that he is not going to press the relief nos. (i) and (iii).

¶23

So far relief no. (iv) relating to release of full dearness allowance is concerned, this Court on perusal the order of the University dated 01.10.2013 as contained in Annexure-11 would find that only an optional arrangement has been sought to be made for making payment of balance of dearness allowance beyond what was already available by release of fund by the State Government. The aforesaid order of the University cannot be read to be a direction to the Principal to make payment of balance dearness allowance to the entire employees from the internal resources of the College.

¶24

That being so, this Court would find it difficult to allow the prayer as contained in paragraph no. (iv) of the writ application.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.4608 of 2014 (3) dt.02-05-2014

¶26

¶27

Reverting back to the other prayer in paragraph no. 1(ii), this Court must find that it was the fact finding inquiry which was held by the University against the acting Principal and therefore whether there was a delay in submission of the report or whether the University was serious or not in pursuing that inquiry, cannot be made the subject matter of a writ petition at the instance of the petitioner. It is for the University to run its administration and discipline and therefore, the best authority to decide as with regard to continuation of the fact finding inquiry will be again the University. Since, there is a change of Vice-Chancellor of the University, this Court can only direct that if the petitioner approaches the new Vice-chancellor in this regard, he will examine the matter and take his own decision as may be permissible in law.

¶28

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶29

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶30

Ranjan/-

Upendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Rafat Praween and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sahdeo Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Parashu Ram Singh Vs Jai Prakash University and Ors.

Ramjee Mishra and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Safatullah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.