Any Action Of State Authorities & Universities To Be Tested On Anvil Of Article 14; There Must Be Uniformity Being Hallmark Of Good Governance: Patna HC
The Patna High Court remarked that any action of the State authorities and the Universities is to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court remarked thus in a batch of writ petitions in which the issue was in narrow compass with regard to the benefit under the amended provisions of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme).
A Single Bench of Justice Harish Kumar observed, “… the ACP Rules, 2003 with all its amendment framed for the State Government employees is also applicable to the non-teaching employees of the Universities and Constituent Colleges; that being so the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions and its consequential financial outcome. … There must be uniformity, which is the hallmark of good governance. Any action of the State authorities and the Universities is to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and such action is vulnerable, if, prima facie, based on discrimination.”
Advocate Hari Shankar Roy represented the petitioners while AC Hitesh Suman represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioners were retired Office Assistants/Accounts Assistant and Senior Selection Grade Assistant of L.N. Mithila University who were aggrieved by the inaction of the State as well as University authorities. They sought a direction to ensure payment of full pension as well as difference of pension after according the benefit of ACP and 6th Pay Scale. They further sought a direction upon the authorities concerned to ensure payment of admissible Group Insurance and deferred dearness allowance along with admissible interest. Upon being superannuated, the petitioners were allowed the pension and the other benefits on the fixed pay scale after granting the benefit of ACP/MACP.
However, despite lapse of a considerable period, when the petitioners were not accorded the full and final pension and other retiral benefits/admissible dues, the petitioners approached before the Pension office of the respondent University. Notwithstanding the fixation of the pension after due consideration of the prescriptions, as provided under the ACP Rules, and the amendment thereof, when the petitioners were not allowed the pre and post retiral dues, they approached before the High Court by filing the writ petitions.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “It is high time, the State being a welfare State and a model employer is required to bring its house in order, the employees of the University cannot left in lurch; it is the need of the hour to mollify the heart burning and resentment amongst the non-teaching employees of the University. The State must not behave like adversary litigant and the paucity of fund should not be a ground to compel each of member to approach the Court and bring favourable order, albeit their case based on parity. The dispute howsoever grave, it must give a quietus.”
The Court noted that the amendment made in the ACP Rules, 2003 will not be applicable to the employees of the Universities automatically, nonetheless, applicable to the employees of the State Government.
“… any notification or Government decision, which would make the terms and conditions of the agreement redundant and found in the teeth of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sunny Prakash (supra) shall to that extent be declared invalid and inoperative as such”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court observed that, if the response of the University or the concerned employee is not found to be satisfactory, the State Government can issue appropriate direction to the University to issue appropriate order.
“The final notification and amendment or corrigendum or clarification of the previous decision has to be taken by the University because Pay Verification Cell does not have any power in this regard”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the University to refix the pension of the petitioners.
Cause Title- Bimal Kumar Bimal v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates B. Mishra, Tanuja Kumari Mishra, and Utkarsh Bhushan.
Respondents: AC Hitesh Suman, Advocates Nadim Seraj, and Iqbal Asif Niazi.
