Disposed

Nagendra Prasad Yadav v. the Nilambar Pitambar University through Its Registrar

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2019WPC/966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-payment of salary for over 10 months. The Court held that the affiliated college is not a State Instrumentality under Article 12. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file fresh representations with the University for consideration within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to file fresh representations with the University within two weeks. The University is directed to consider them and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

Nagendra Prasad Yadav Vs the Nilambar Pitambar… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 966 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Nagendra Prasad Yadav

¶5

Anesh Kumar Singh

¶6

Birendra Kumar Vishwakarma … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus -

¶8

The Nilambar Pitambar University, Palamu through its Registrar.

¶9

The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, Palamu.

¶10

The P.A. to the Vice Chancellor, Nilambar Pitambar University, Palamu

¶11

The Principal In Charge, Bokaro Steel Mines College, Bhawanathpur, Garhwa.

¶12

The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.

¶14

The Sub-divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa.

¶15

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhawanathpur Township Branch, Garhwa.

¶16

... … Respondents ---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the University : Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, SC (L&C)-II For the Bank : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

¶17

¶18

06/ 03.07.2019 Petitioners confine their prayer for payment of salary which has not been

¶19

paid to them for more than past 10 months, despite the fact that they are working against the sanctioned post in the college.

¶20

At the very outset, Mrs. Amrita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that the college in which the petitioners are working is an affiliated college and as such, the University has no role to play in the internal management of the college, since the University is responsible only for the purpose of constitution of the Governing Body. Learned counsel, however, submits that if the petitioners approach the University by filing fresh representations, raising their grievances, the same shall be

¶21

¶22

considered by the respondents and reasoned order shall be passed on such representations, in accordance with law.

¶23

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that since already a Governing Body is in existence by way of notification issued by the Registrar of the respondentUniversity, petitioners grievances are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, as the college does not fall under the definition of the State Instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

¶24

However, in view of fair submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-University, I hereby direct the petitioners to approach before the respondentUniversity by filing fresh representations annexing all the documents upon which they are relying along with a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of such representations alongwith the copy of this order, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter, pass a reasoned order on the representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representations.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands

¶26

disposed of.

¶27

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶28

kunal/-

Nagendra Prasad Yadav v. the Nilambar Pitambar University through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Prasad Yadav v. the Nilambar Pitambar University through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Yadav Vs Health

MD Ainul Ali Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

Smt Sheela Devi Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Madan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vina Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Co. Operative Department

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Co. Operative Department