The High Court of Judicature at Patna, in the case of Manoj Kumar v. The Bihar Agriculture University, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 743 of 2021 held that slashing the monthly salary of an Assistant Professor by 25% on the ground of non-completion of Ph.D. will not be maintainable. In the instant case, the petitioner was an Assistant Professor – cum – Junior Scientist in the Bihar Agriculture University. He applied for a study leave with full pay for a period of three years to pursue the Ph.D. programme offered by Punjab University. He applied for an extension of the study leave for one more year and the said extension was given to him. However, he could not conclude the Ph.D. programme within the said period for the non-submission of his thesis and non-appearance in viva voce. His non-appearance for viva voce was on account of the inability of the co-investigator to accompany him. However, one interesting fact in the case was that the petitioner signed a Bond undertaking to serve the university after his return from the study leave, for a period of five years. The Bond provided that the petitioner would be liable to refund the whole or part of the training or the salary he received during the study leave accompanied by an amount of ₹10,000 as damages. The University then decided to retain the petitioner in service but recover the salary paid to him during study leave by slashing his monthly salary by 25%.
The Court observed that the petitioner, in the instant case, has almost completed the Ph.D. programme but the submission of his thesis and viva-voce remains pending till date for which the petitioner has offered reasons. The Court concluded that there was no deliberate intention of the petitioner to not complete or delay the completion of the Ph.D. programme. Therefore, the Bond executed by him should not be read as a forfeiture bond. With respect to the Bond executed by the petitioner, the Court further observed that the Bond was executed for the purpose of serving the University after the expiration of the study leave but not for the completion of the Ph.D. programme within the said time frame. Hence, the promise made by the petitioner was beyond the Advisory Guidelines issued by the Academic Council of the University.
The Court concluded the hearing by providing the following reliefs to the petitioner:
- i) No deductions should be made on account of the non-completion of the Ph.D. programme.
- ii) The fourth year of the study should be considered as paid leave. If the petitioner does not have enough paid-leave, he may remain on leave without pay.
iii) Fresh calculations should be made to see if any amount is due against the petitioner, and if it is, then the University should relax or condone the same or adopt a soft recovery policy.
- iv) The Vice Chancellor of the University was directed to communicate to the Punjab Agriculture University, to provide necessary assistance to the petitioner for early submission of his thesis and viva-voice for conclusion of the Ph.D. programme.
About the author
