Nilima Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate Mr. S. Raza, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.SC-I Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG-I Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, AC to GP-VI For the Resp-University : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate For the Resp-JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate -----

¶21

I.A. No. 11048 of 2023 in W.P.(S) No. 4286 of 2015

¶22

28/ 09.01.2024 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of petitioner no. 1 (Dr. Ram Kishore Roy) who died on 17.5.2021 during the pendency of this writ petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 died during the pendency of this writ petition and now he will be represented through his widow as mentioned in para-5 of this interlocutory application. Learned counsel submits that in the interest of justice and proper adjudication of the case, the name of legal heir of deceased petitioner, as mentioned in para no.6 of the instant interlocutory application may kindly be substituted in his place.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to such

¶25

prayer.

¶26

2

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in the instant interlocutory application, the name of petitioner no.1 is allowed to be deleted from cause title of the main writ petition and in his place, name of legal heir, as mentioned in para-6 of the said interlocutory application be substituted, within a period of two weeks.

¶28

Office is directed to make suitable corrections in the cause

¶29

title of the main writ petition as also in other records.

¶30

The aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶31

W.P.(S) No. 4286 of 2015, W.P.(S) No. 574 of 2018 & W.P.(S) No.

¶32

578 of 2018

¶33

Since in all the writ petitions common relief has been sought for, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶34

The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 13.7.2012 whereby pay fixation was made with effect from the date of holding the sanctioned post i.e. 1.4.2003, instead of their initial appointment. The petitioners have also prayed for grant of time bound promotion to the post of Reader. They have also claimed for pay fixation from the date of their initial appointments.

¶35

Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that at initial stage, a prayer has been made for fixation of pay of petitioners to the post of Lecturer from the date of their initial appointments. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievances of the petitioners have been redressed to some extent and they have been granted time bound promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader from the date of their initial appointments i.e. 28.2.1992 which has been brought on record by way of I.A. No. 11010 of 2023. He further submits that though time bound promotion has been granted and pay fixation has also been done, but actual monetary benefits have not been extended. Learned counsel submits that in view of grant of time bound promotion from their initial date of appointment, they are entitled for pay fixation from the date of their initial date of appointment.

¶36

Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University argues that the grievance of the petitioners has

¶37

3

¶38

already been redressed. The petitioners have been considered for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Reader. Learned counsel submits that after granting promotion, pay fixation has already been done. However, if the petitioners are still aggrieved by non-payment of actual monetary benefit and other grievances, they can file a fresh representation which shall be considered in accordance with law and if they are entitled for the benefits in view of the promotional order, the same shall be considered and granted within stipulated period.

¶39

In view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I hereby direct the petitioners to file a fresh representation raising their grievances which shall be considered by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation. Let it be made clear that in view of promotional order and pay fixation, if grantin-aid has not been released by the respondent-State, steps shall be taken by the State for release of amount which are required for making payment after promotional order.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stands disposed of. I.A. No.11010 of 2023 also stands disposed of.

¶41

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

¶42

R.Kr.

Nilima Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilima Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department

Dileshwar Ram Vs Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

Bhuwan Bhaskar Vs Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through Its Director

Bir Bahadur Singh Vs Road Construction

Prativa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.