Rajani Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)

Date : 10-08-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present Interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of three years, four months and thirteen days, in filing the memo of appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ application was disposed of during the period of pandemic and the appellant, who is an old person and has a medical history was under treatment at various places since 2014 for the ailments related to eyes and also of his wife. It has been submitted that on account of such illness, the appeal could not be filed in time and the delay occurred. It has been submitted that the delay was inadvertent, hence it may be condoned.

The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have not seriously objected to the prayer for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, made on behalf of the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid, considering the circumstances and the reasons furnished for delay, as has been stated in this interlocutory application, we find that sufficient cause has been shown so as to warrant condonation of delay which has occurred in filing the present appeal, hence we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay which has taken place in filing of the appeal.

I.A. No. 01 of 2023 stands allowed.

Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the Magadh University and the learned A.C. to A.A.G. -13.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-06-2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5325 of 2019, whereby the writ petition, preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled for 120 days of leave encashment instead of 58 days, as sanctioned.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner/appellant approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition praying therein for quashing the letter dated 05.09.2018, contained in memo no. 324 issued under the signature of the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, whereby the remaining earned leave of the petitioner was reduced from 120 days to 58 days and further since no payment had been made to the writ petitioner/appellant. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the calculation done by the university. The earned leave which ought to have been 120 days was arbitrarily reduced to 58 days. It has been asserted that the writ petitioner/appellant was entitled for a total of 300 days of earned leave, once there was a notification to such effect raising the barrier from 180 days to 300 days. Nonetheless, the Magadh University through the Registrar communicated that though the appellant has been sanctioned earned leave for 300 days however, he will be paid for 180 days of earned leave and it was further communicated that for the remaining 120 days the payment shall be made as and when the funds are received from the State government.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that upon retirement on 30.06.2008, the appellant was paid all the post retirement benefits, including a part of the earned leave (180 days) and his pension was also fixed. It was on 05.09.2018 that a letter was issued under the signature of the Registrar of the Magadh University communicating to the petitioner that only 58 days of earned leave has been sanctioned in his favour. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant submits that the action of the university is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. As, from the calculations, which has been brought on record, it would appear that 32 days of earned leave was deducted on account of a strike, which was called for by the employees of the university. It has been contended that the said 32 days could not have been deducted unilaterally and the appellant ought to have been noticed prior to deducting the said number of days from the earned leave.

The learned counsel for the appellant further draws the attention of this Court towards the deduction of 20 days from an admitted 200 days of earned leave till 14.09.2006. It has been submitted that initially the writ petitioner/appellant was paid an amount for only 180 days however, when the period was being calculated from 15.09.2006 till the date of his retirement, 20 days out of the 200 days of admitted earned leave, initially calculated till 14.09.2006 was not added and, therefore, the University has erred in calculating the earned leave days and has erroneously left out 20 days from the total earned leave. It has thus been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the University is not justified in deducting initially 20 days out of the 200 days of earned leave and then deducting 32 days on account of there being a strike in the university.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that as per the rule, the appellant was paid leave encashment for 180 days till 14.09.2006 even though the earned leave was more than 180 days, hence the petitioner was earlier paid only for only 180 days out of total 200 days. It has been submitted that it was in light of the letter dated 10.10.2014 that the University notified for payment of only 300 days with effect from 15.09.2006. It has been contended that it was in light of the aforesaid order that the calculation was made effective from 15.09.2006 till the date of retirement, that is 30.06.2008, which comes out to 58 days and the same was sanctioned.

Referring to Annexure-D of the Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the writ proceedings, the learned counsel for the University submits that the leave encashment of maximum 180 days will be allowed to a teacher, who retires on or before 14.09.2006 and those who retire on or after 15.09.2006 their earned leave shall be separately counted thereafter subject to maximum of 120 days.

It has further been submitted that 180 days of earned leave has already been paid to the appellant, therefore the writ petitioner was only entitled for 58 days as per the calculation chart and there is no illegality in the same.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into account the various orders, as contained in the memo issued by the university, we find that the university has apparently erred in calculating the amount of earned leave. We find that once the university had sanctioned 300 days of earned leave, the calculation ought to have been made as per the total number of days of earned leave and therefore, any payment, which was made to the petitioner, taking into account 180 days of earned leave, as it was earlier, should have been made subject to the fresh notification of 300 days. The interpretation of the learned counsel for the University of Annexure-D to the Supplementary counter affidavit is also misconceived as there is no reference therein that the fresh calculation has to be done taking into account only the remaining 120 days out of 300 days.

We have found that initially the university had calculated a total number of 200 days of earned leave by deducting 32 days for the period of strike and thereafter, from 15.09.2006 till the date of retirement of the petitioner, 58 days have been calculated. In doing so, the university has omitted that part of the period of 20 days, which was initially deducted erroneously while making calculation of leave encashment amount up to 14.09.2006, inasmuch as the calculation cannot be made in a piecemeal manner but has to be made in a wholesome manner at the time of superannuation of an employee.

In our considered opinion, the University by leaving those 20 days till 14.09.2006 has erred in calculating the total earned leave, which is in teeth of the letter dated 30.07.2005, issued by the Human Resources Department (Higher Education), Government of Bihar, Patna, letter dated 17.02.2011 issued by the Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar and the Office Order dated 10.10.2014 issued by the Magadh University, hence we direct that the earned leave of the writ petitioner/appellant should also take into account 20 days, which was left out earlier as calculated by the University itself, while making payment for only 180 days. This aspect of the matter stands covered by a judgment dated 31.08.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Sunder Acharia vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2016 (2) PLJR 801, as upheld by a coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1253 of 2016 by a judgment dated 11.01.2018.

As far as the claim of the appellant for 32 days of earned leave, which has been deducted by the University on account of the period of strike, is concerned we find that such claim was never agitated by the writ petitioner/appellant before the authorities, hence it is left open for the university to decide such claim of the appellant, upon appropriate representation being filed by the writ petitioner/appellant before the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University within a period of four weeks from today.

We make it clear that the Vice Chancellor shall take a fresh decision within a period of four weeks of filing of representation by the writ petitioner, by passing a reasoned and a speaking order, as regards the adjustment of 32 days which has been made in calculation of the earned leave, pertaining to the period of strike. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of such a claim.

In view of the above, the University is directed to make payment for a total of 78 days (20+58 days) of earned leave to the writ petitioner/appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, to the extent the same has not stood paid.

Accordingly, the order dated 23.06.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5325 of 2019 is set aside.

The appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction.