Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1068 Tri

                                Page 1 of 6




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                           WP(C) No.850/2022

Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma, Son of Late Ram Gopal Sharma, residing at
Flat No.A2/503, Celina Apartments, Behind Ranka Jewellers, Baner Road,
Pune-411045, Maharashtra.
                                                       ...... Petitioner(s)
                            VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi-110001.
2. The University Grants Commission, represented by the Chairman, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.
3. The Tripura University (A Central University), represented by the
Registrar, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar-799022, Tripura University
Sub-Post Office, P.S. Amtali, District-West Tripura.
4. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura, Education(Higher) Department, New Secretariat Complex, P.O.
Kunjaban-799006, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.
                                                       ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)              : Petitioner-in-Person.
For Respondent(s)              : None.

              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Date of hearing and judgment : 14th December, 2022.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma, petitioner-in-person.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner-in-person has

made challenge to the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench

of this Court in Review Petition No.07 of 2022 whereby the Division Bench

directed the Tripura University to re-compute the interest payable to the

petitioner on his unpaid pensionary/terminal benefits from the date it became

due and payable to him till the date of actual payment and to release the

same within a period of two weeks from the date of order with a liberty to

the petitioner to raise his objections by way of filing representation

regarding such computation within a further period of two weeks and further

directed the University to dispose of such representation if so filed by the

petitioner within a further period of four weeks therefrom.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following

reliefs:

"In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and in the interest of justice, fair and equity, this Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to not only admit Principal claims and/or other legitimate claims of Private Petitioner along with payment of interest not only on the delayed total amount of Payment of Rs.51,62,074/- @ 7% per annum from date on which became due and payable on 01.04.2007 to the date of payment on 01.10.2019 but also on delayed actual total payable amount arrived at after its computations on aforesaid apposite Schemes with costs but also proceed for the Contempt of Court by the Respondent No.3 Tripura University and issue Rule NISI calling upon Respondents to Show-Cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari should not be

issued directing the Respondents to produce all relevant records and to declare that the Private Petitioner is entitled to get his principal claims and/or other legitimate claims, appropriate writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of similar nature to AND/OR As to why appropriate order should not be issued to Respondent No.3 as may be necessary by this Hon'ble High Court to grant the reliefs expeditiously under the circumstances that Private Petitioner is now 75+ years old.

To pass such other appropriate order and directions as are considered necessary by this Hon'ble Court to bring urgent relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND/OR As to why any other Writ or Writs to grant complete and adequate reliefs to the Private Petitioner.

AND the Private Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever Pray."

4. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joined the

Calcutta University Post Graduate Centre at Agartala on 05.12.1984 on the

post of Reader. In due course he was promoted to the post of Professor of

Mathematics w.e.f. 29.04.2003. The said centre became a full-fledged State

University called Tripura University under Tripura University Act, 1987. At

that time, the petitioner was informed that he would retire as a Professor on

attaining the age of 60 years. Accordingly, he retired w.e.f. 31.03.2007 when

he crossed the age of 60 years on 16.03.2007. He made representations to the

authorities contending that he should have been continued in service till the

age of 65 years. This request was not accepted. He thereupon filed WP(C)

No.303 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court. Learned Single Judge of the

High Court dismissed this petition by a judgment dated 22.12.2011 holding

that the petitioner retired before the Tripura University became a Central

University and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim higher retirement age.

It was also held that the university was not even centrally funded institution.

5. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the

petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.07 of 2012 which was dismissed by a

judgment dated 25.04.2012 confirming the decision of the learned Single

Judge. The petitioner thereupon filed SLP before the Supreme Court in

which a detailed order dated 21.11.2016 was passed by the Apex Court

observing that the question whether the university was funded by the Central

Government is, therefore, a moot question on which the Court was required

to record a finding. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.02.2017 the SLP of the

petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed yet another petition

before the High Court of Tripura being WP(C) No.577 of 2019 which was

disposed of by an order dated 08.05.2019 with a liberty to file a fresh

petition, if needed. The petitioner thereupon made a representation to the

Vice Chancellor of the Tripura University on 15.05.2019 with several

claims. The petitioner thereupon filed WP(C) No.1361 of 2019 in which he

has made several prayers. The said writ petition was disposed of directing

the University to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

Aggrieved thereby, the University filed appeal being W.A. No.449 of 2020

which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereupon, the

University filed Review Petition No.07 of 2022 which was disposed of by

the Division Bench directing the Tripura University to re-compute the

interest payable to the petitioner on his unpaid pensionary benefits from the

date it became due and payable to him till the date of actual payment and to

release the same on filing a representation by the petitioner. The Court also

granted liberty to both sides to approach this Court if they are aggrieved by

the outcome of such proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this

writ petition. Hence, this case.

6. Petitioner Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma appears in person and

contends that the computations with regard to the interest payable on the

delayed payment of retiral benefits by the Tripura University are erroneous

and also seeks for a direction to the respondent-University to produce all

relevant records relating to his claims and to re-compute all dues that the

petitioner is entitled to and release the same expeditiously considering his

age and health condition.

7. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner-in-person,

this Court dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

The petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the

Vice Chancellor of Tripura University indicating the amounts that the

petitioner is entitled to in view of his superannuation. On receipt of such

representation, the Vice Chancellor shall decide the same within a period not

later than three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The

Vice Chancellor shall take a pragmatic approach in the matter considering

the age and health condition of the petitioner as a senior citizen who is now

around 75 years old. If the decision is taken to make the payment, the same

shall be paid expeditiously. In the event, if the University is disputing any

claims, the said decision shall be communicated to him under proper

acknowledgement.

On receipt of any such decision, if the petitioner is aggrieved,

he is at liberty to take appropriate steps available under law.

8. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed

of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Pulak