Disposed

Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2021WPC/17/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand directed the State Government to consider the petitioners' case for arrears of salary at a higher pay scale based on settled precedent, directing a reasoned order within eight weeks and communication of any favorable decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to consider the petitioners' case in light of previous judgments and pass a reasoned order within 8 weeks; to communicate any favorable decision to the University wit

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 17 of 2021

¶3

Anil Kumar, son of late Bechu Mistry

¶4

Bhola Mahto, son of late Ramu Mahto

¶5

Dr. Sudha Sinha, daughter of Late I.D. Sinha

¶6

Dinesh Tirkey, son of Late Abraham Tirkey

¶7

5.Kalindi Kumari, daughter of Shyam Sundar Bhagat

¶8

Godliva Baxla, daughter of late Marcel Baxla

¶9

Meena Toppo, daughter of Raju Oraon

¶10

….. Petitioners

¶11

-- Versus –

¶12

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶13

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

¶14

3.The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶15

The Registrar, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶16

…... Respondents

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶18

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A.-III For the University : Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate

¶19

4./Dated:-02.03.2021

¶20

Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶21

Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for the University.

¶22

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have

¶23

complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶24

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction

¶25

¶26

upon the respondents for payment of the arrears of salary as per 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.12000420- 18300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 which has not been paid to the petitioner as the issue is no more res integra and decided by this Court and also affirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court by which the issue regarding two pay scales of Reader have been struck down considering only one post of Reader in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013 affirmed in L.P.A. No.661 of 2019.

¶27

Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Lecturer on 03.03.1983 in Mandar College in the in the Department of History and promoted to the post of Reader on 23.09 1995 and done his Ph.D in the year, 1993 at present is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and retired on 31.12.2020, petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Lecturer on 24.11.1981 in R.L.S. Yadav College, Ranchi in the Department of Zoology and promoted to the post of Reader on 19.02.1990 at present his is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, petitioner no. 3 was appointed as Lecturer on 12.12.1981 in J.J. College, Jhumri Telaiya in the Department of History and promoted to the post of Reader on 12.12.1991, done her Ph.D in the year, 1991 and at present she is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi, petitioner no. 4 was appointed as Lecturer on 10.12.1981 in Giridih College, Giridih in the Department Psychology and promoted to the post of Reader on 10.12.1991, done his Ph. D. in the year 2004

¶28

¶29

and at present he is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and will retire on 30.11.2021, petitioner no. 5 was appointed as Lecturer on 21.08.1984 in Punch Pargana Kisan College, Bundu in the department of History and promoted to the post of Reader on 23.09.1995, done her Ph.D in the year, 1989 and at present she is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and will retire on 31.03.2023, petitioner no. 6 was appointed on 11.12.1981 as Lecturer in Tata College, Chaibasa in the Department of Political Science and promoted on the post of Reader on 23.09.1995 and she has retired on 31.12.2019 as Associate Professor from Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and petitioner no. 7 was appointed on 23.11.1981 as Lecturer in Workers College, Jamshedpur in the Department of Geography and promoted to the post of Reader on 23.11.1991 and done her Ph.D in 1980 and at present she is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi. It is averred in the writ petition that under the career advancement scheme of the UGC which shows that minimum length of service for eligibility to move in the grade of Lecturers, senior scale would be 4 years for those with Ph.D, 5 years with those M.Phil and 6 years for those at the level of Lecturers and for eligibility to move into the grade or Reader/Lecturers –Selection Grade, the minimum length of service of Lecturer in senior selection grade shall be uniformly 5 years. It will be evident from the order dated 06.09.2019 after the order passed in LPA No.22/2018, the State Government came out with a notification directing all the Universities to state that total number of Readers of the entire State in various Universities who were

¶30

¶31

granted promotion under ‘Time bound promotion scheme/ Merit promotion scheme’, meaning thereby after the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondent/State is taking stand for paying the arrears to all the Readers in one pay scale i.e. Rs.12,000-420-18,300/in 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision committee. It is mentioned that the petitioners were otherwise eligible for being placed at the Lecturer Selection Grade in the scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- at the time of promotion to the post of Reader under the scheme, but they have been placed in the Scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He further submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in “ Prashant Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013 and “Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and Othrs” in W.P.(S) No.3690 of 2018 . He submits that the matter may kindly be disposed of with a direction to the respondent State to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in cases of “Prashant Kumar Mishra & Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others” and “Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and Others” .

¶32

The State counsel submits that the Government came out with a notification directing all the Universities to state that the total number of Readers in the entire State in various Universities who were granted promotion under time bound promotion scheme meaning thereby after the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPAs.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents are bound to act in terms of letter dated 11.09.2020 by

¶34

¶35

which the arrears of pay scales of Reader in 5^th , 6^th and 7^th pay revision has been given to the writ petitioners of W.P(S) No. 4162/2013, L.P.A. No. 22/2018 and L.P.A. No. 661/2019 and cannot adopt discriminatory attitude in respect of the present petitioners by way of pick and choose method.

¶36

Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, the learned counsel for the University submits that it is in the domain of the State to consider the case of the petitioners. He further submits that if any rectification will be done by the State Government, the University shall comply the same.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the identical matters in the case of “Prashant Kumar Mishra” and “Geeta” (supra) the matter has been set at rest which was affirmed in L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661/2019. It is stated that on the basis of the above mentioned judgments, the Court may dispose the instant case accordingly.

¶38

In view of the above admitted position, the respondent State is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in “Prashant Kumar Mishra” and “Geeta” (supra) and also L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661 of 2019 and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order.

¶39

It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioners the same shall be communicated to the University within a period of four weeks so that the benefit of the same may be accrued to the petitioners at the earliest.

¶40

With the above observations and direction, the instant writ

¶41

¶42

petition stands disposed of.

¶43

I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶44

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶45

Satyarthi/-

Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Fulena Devi Vs Home Department

Savita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Child Welfare Social Development Department

D P Sinha Vs Ms Coal India Limited through Its Chairman

Dr Jadav Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand

Sharmila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Social Welfare