Allowed

Dr Jadav Dutta v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2021WPC/478/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired lecturer filed a writ petition seeking direction for payment of arrears of salary under revised pay scales. The High Court, relying on prior judgments regarding Reader pay scales, directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's case and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent State to consider the petitioner's case in light of specified judgments and pass a reasoned order within 8 weeks.

Dr Jadav Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 478 of 2021

¶3

Dr. Jadav Dutta, aged about 66 years, son of late Bhim Chandra Dutta, resident of Road No.- 3-A, New Subhash Colony, Mango, Jamshedpur831012, District-East Singhbhum ….. Petitioner

¶4

-- Versus –

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

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

¶7

3.The Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West Singhbhum

¶8

4.The Registrar, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West Singhbhum

¶9

…... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III For Kolhan University: - Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate

¶12

2./Dated:-02.03.2021

¶13

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

¶14

Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the respondent-Kolhan University.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction 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

¶17

the petitioner as the issue is no more res integra and decided by this

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 08.12.1981 in Tata College, Chaibasa, promoted as Reader as on 08.12.1991 and done Ph.D in the year, 1993. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2020 from Kolhan University. The petitioner was Lecturer in the subject of Bengali. 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 is evident from the order dated 06.09.2019 that 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 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 petitioner

¶21

¶22

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 petitioner 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” .

¶23

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.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents are bound to act in terms of letter dated 11.09.2020 by 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 petitioner by way of pick and choose method.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

In view of the above admitted position, the respondent State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner 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. 10. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner 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 petitioner at the earliest.

¶29

With the above observations and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

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

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Satyarthi/-

Dr Jadav Dutta v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Jadav Dutta 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

D P Sinha Vs Ms Coal India Limited through Its Chairman

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