Petitioner sought pay fixation benefits from the date of post sanction or appointment. Court noted State Government must decide sanction date. Application disposed of with liberty to approach State authority.
Application disposed with liberty to approach the State Government for redressal within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5992 of 2008
Deo Bhushan Prasad ..… Petitioner
Versus
….. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Ms. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate
31/15.02.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application was initially preferred by the petitioner for several reliefs as mentioned in Paragraph-1 of the instant writ application. However, during pendency of this application, the petitioner has received the monetary benefits of 5th and 6th revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till 31.01.2015.
In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent that since the petitioner is entitled for grant of benefits of pay fixation since the date of his joining i.e. 01.7.1983 or at least from the date of sanction of the post on which he is working i.e. 09.4.1991; as such necessary direction be issued to the Respondent University to pay the monitory benefits accordingly.
3. Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the post was sanctioned on 09.4.1991, much prior to the date of pay fixation granted to the petitioner i.e. 01.8.1993; as such, at least the petitioner should get the benefit of pay fixation from 09.4.1991 if not from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 01.7.1983.
The petitioner craves liberty of this court to approach the concerned department of the government for redressal of his grievance to the effect that since the very post
-2-
was sanctioned on 9.4.1991 and the petitioner was working since 1983 on the said post, as such the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of pay fixation from 09.4.1991 itself instead of 01.8.1993.
4. Ms. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the Vinova Bhave University, on the claim of the petitioner that the post was sanctioned since the year 1991, submits that from Annexure 3 to the writ application, it clearly transpires that the post was only sanctioned for the current financial year, i.e. 1991-92 and for which Rs.24,000/- was sanctioned by the Government. She further submits that the post was not sanctioned permanently; rather it was only for a particular scheme the post was created, for which the amount was also sanctioned and the petitioner has duly received the said amount.
5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the Ranchi University as well as B.B.M.K. University submits that the petitioner has not challenged the order of regularization. However, he fairly submits that the petitioner is always at liberty to raise his grievance before the State government as it is only the State government who sanctions fund for sanctioned post and therefore the State Government is the only competent authority to answer as to when the said post was sanctioned i.e. whether from 01.8.1993 or 09.4.1991.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents available on record; especially Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 and 2 dated 19.11.2018, it appears that pay fixation of the petitioner was done by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand and the substantive date of appointment of this petitioner has been shown as 01.8.1993.
Further, it is only the State government who sanctions fund for sanctioned post and therefore the State Government is the only authority to answer as to when the said post was sanctioned i.e. whether from 01.8.1993 or 09.4.1991. Since, the State government is not a party-
-3-
respondent in this case as such, without going into the merits of the case and without deciding the issue raised by the petitioner; the instant writ application is, hereby, disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned State authority for redressal of his grievance along with supporting documents.
If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law, rules, regulation and applicable notifications within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay fixation benefits from the date of post sanction or appointment.
Whether the State Government is the competent authority to decide the date of post sanction.
Whether the writ application requires adjudication without the State Government being a party.
Deo Bhushan Prasad
Vinoba Bhave University
The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University
The Principal, B.S.K. College
The Ranchi University
Binod Bihari Mahto Koyalanchal University
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
