Patna High Court:  The appellant, appointed to a government college on an ad-hoc basis but his services were later approved and upon instances of non-payment of dues, he approached the Court, which directed the college authorities to reimburse him, which was done. Following certain other grievances, he preferred a representation before the University and when the same was delayed, he filed a petition before the court which directed the authorities to respond to the representation. The representation was rejected and the rejection challenged again before the court, which forwarded the matter to the Principal Secretary of the Dept. of Education. Though the Principal Secretary was, in 2014 directed to consider the representation within 3 months, the same had not been done so. The retirement benefits of the appellant also remained unpaid.

The counsel for the State submitted that the appointment of the appellant was not under any law and on an unsanctioned post and hence his appointment itself is not certain and since the matter was pending before the Principal Secretary, his emoluments shall be paid only once his appointment is confirmed as valid and the University shall be bound by any such order.

Hence the Court held the appellant’s petition to be premature and since the status of his post itself was under scrutiny, related benefits of retirement shall be paid only once the appellant was confirmed to be a recognized employee of the college. It was however directed that the Provident Fund amount of the petitioner should be paid within 4 weeks. [Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,  2018 SCC OnLine Pat 800, decided on 16-05-2018]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.