Dilip Kumar Roy v. The Vice Chancellor Rajendra Agriculture Research University And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.2967 of 2013 dt.11-01-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2967 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Dilip Kumar Roy Son Of Ram Lagan Rai Of Village Harpur Pusa, P.S. Pusa, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University , Pusa, Samastipur

2. The Registrar, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

3. The Examination Controller, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

4. The Director, Sugarcane Research Centre, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

5. The Director (Administration), Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur

6. The Superintendent, Cattle Farm, Pusa, Samastipur

7. The Principal Cum Superintendent, Tirhut Agriculture College, Dholi, Muzaffarpur

8. The Coordinator , Oil Seed (Sunflower) Scheme, Tirhut Agriculture College, Dholi, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate. Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University.

This writ petition has been filed for payment of salary to the petitioner from October, 2009 to August, 2013. As per counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has worked during the aforesaid period but no salary has been paid to him. Learned counsel for the University has annexed an

Patna High Court CWJC No.2967 of 2013 dt.11-01-2016 absentee list vide Annexure-C and on that basis he submits that in major of the period the petitioner has remained absent and whatever he is entitled has already been paid and so much so petitioner has been terminated from service where order has been passed for recovery of cost of 138 Sisam trees comes to Rs.7,50,869.

The order of termination has been challenged before this Court by the petitioner will be considered later on. However, the respondent University will consider the case of the petitioner with regard to payment of salary for the period he has worked. If University finds that petitioner is entitled for any amount after proper adjustment will be paid to him. The University will take decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation this writ petitioner is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U