Jharkhand High Court
Brajesh Kumar Verma vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.2631 of 2018
Brajesh Kumar Verma, aged about 58 years, son of Late Sambhoo
Nath Verma, resident of Veer Kuwar Singh Colony, Near Arra
Machine, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi P.O. & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi;
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi P.Ο. &
P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Higher and Technical Education,
Project Building, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi P.O. & P.S-
Doranda, District-Ranchi;
4. Ranchi University, through the Registrar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, District-Ranchi;
5. The Registrar, Ranchi University, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi;
6. Principal, Yogada Satsang College, Jagarnathpur, P.O. & P.S.-
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.4548 of 2015
1. Ananda Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Radai Singh,
resident of Village Chirgora, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Dhalbhumgarh,
District East Singhbhum.
2. Ram Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Shyam
Narayan Singh, resident of Dahigora Pal Colony, P.O. Ghatshila,
P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
Page 1 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
4. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.4552 of 2015
Akhileshwar Mishra, aged about 63 years, son of Late D.N. Mishra,
resident of Chanakyapuri, Old Purulia Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S.
Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
4. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015
Surendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ram Gulam Singh, R/o Gharaunda
Apartment, P.O. Mango, P.S. Ulidih Mango, Dist- East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Nilambar Pitambar University through the Vice Chancellor,
Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District
Palamau;
5. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District Palamau;
... Respondents
WITH
Page 2 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
W.P. (S) No.1323 of 2017
Shri Radha Nath Jha, son of Late Jagannath Jha, Hinoo, resident of
Saket Nagar (Awadhpuri, Doranda), Post Office and Police Station-
Doranda and District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department,
Human Resource Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal House, Post Office and Police
Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, Post Office-G.P.O.,
Police Station-Kotwali and District-Ranchi.
4. The Principal, Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya, affiliated to
Ranchi University, Jagarnathpur, Dhurwa Ranchi, Post Office and
Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.7736 of 2017
1. Sushil Kumar, S/o. Sachida Nand Singh, R/o Ward No. 9, Village
Bishunpur, Naharpar, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa.
2. Anjani Kumar Roy @ Anjani Roy, S/o. Late R.P. Roy, R/o Ward
No.9, Village Bishunpur, Naharpar, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa,
District Garhwa;
3. Ganesh Choudhary, S/o Ram Dhari Choudhary, R/o Village Rabda,
P.O. Harinamarh, P.S. Chainpur, District Daltonganj at Palamau;
4. Arun Kumar Tiwary, S/o Bhardwaj Tiwary, R/o Dr. Bishundeo
Dubey Road, Hamidganj, P.O. Hamidganj, P.S. Daltonganj, District
Daltonganj at Palamu;
5. Ram Akbal Gupta, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, R/o Near Mission
Girl School, Abadganj, Ward No. 23, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj,
District Daltonganj at Palamu;
6. Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava, S/o late Yugeshwar Prasad Sinha, R/o
Devi Mandap, Near Shive Mandir, Ranchi Road, Redma Chiyanki,
P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Daltonganj at Palamu;
7. Arvind Kumar, S/o Ramnath Prasad Jaiswal, R/o House No. 16,
Ward No. 13, Plot No. 342. Pathak Mhalla, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.
Garhwa, District Garhwa;
8. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Ganesh Tiwari, R/o Jhoora, P.O.
Hoor, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa;
Page 3 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
9. Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ramji Prasad Gupta, R/o Ward 1,
village Ranka Kala, P.O. Ranka, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa;
10.Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Lal Das, R/o Ward No.
8, Village Vishunpur, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa;
11.Abhimanyu Kumar Roy, S/o Vishwanath Prasad Roy, R/o
Sultanpur, P.O. & P.S. Sultanpur, District Vaishli (Bihar);
12.Ashutosh Mishra, S/o Nandlal Mishra, R/o Ward No. 2, Beside
Main Panki Road, Baralota South, Janakpuri, P.O. & P.S.
Daltonganj, District Daltonganj at Palamu.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jaganathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Nilambar Pitambar University, through the Vice Chancellor,
Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District
Palamau;
5. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District Palamau;
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.3206 of 2018
Niranjanı Kumar, Aged about 60 Years, S/o Late Mahendra Narayan
Choudhary, R/o Servoday Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur,
P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist-East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Kolhan University through the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University,
P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum;
Page 4 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
5. The Registrar, Kolhan University, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District
West Singhbhum;
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.461 of 2019
Chandra Bhushan Prasad Roy, Aged about 60 Years, S/o Late Vidya
Sagar Roy, R/o K.S. College, Saraikella, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, Dist-
East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Kolhan University through the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University,
P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum;
5. The Registrar, Kolhan University, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District
West Singhbhum;
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.558 of 2019
Anita Toppo, aged about 60 years, wife of Prashant Kumar, resident of
Holding No. 96, Road No.-06, Jawahar Nagar, Near Bible College,
Azad Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Mango, District East
Singhbhum.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, near Shaheed Chowk,
P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
... Respondents
Page 5 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
WITH
W.P. (S) No.880 of 2019
Mukh Lal Singh aged about 59 years 11 months, son of Late Sri
Naresh Singh, resident of behind Block Colony, Link Road,
Piprakalan, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, Medininagar,
Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau.
... Respondents
WITH
W.P. (S) No.4206 of 2019
Bhubneshwar Prasad Gupta, aged about 68 years, son of Late Jiya Lal
Shah resident of "Geeta Niwas" near Matri Ashram, Jamtara, P.O.,P.S.
& Dist. Jamtara.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building P.O & P.S:-
Dhurwa, Dist:- Ranchi
3. The Sinddhu Kanhu Murmu University, through its Vice-
Chancellor, having its office at Dumka, P.O & P.S &, Dist: Dumka.
4. The Registrar, Sinddhu Kanhu Murmu University, having its office
at Dumka, P.O & P.S &, Dist:- Dumka.
5. Jamtara College through its Principal having its office at P.O.P.S.
Jamtara Dist Jamtara
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Page 6 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate
Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate
Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Advocate
Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ganesh Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Mohit Mani Kishore, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA
Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
Mr. Abdul Allam, Sr. Advocate
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A
Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A
---------
Reserved on: 22.04.2025 Pronounced on: 09/05/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2011, amending the definition of the term 'teacher' under Section 2(v) in the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000, deleting the term "Demonstrators" from the said definition; and making them as persons holding Non-Teaching Posts, causing them to retire at age of 60 years instead of being allowed to render service till they attained the age of 65 years.
2. They also seek quashing of the order dt. 19.10.2016 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand denying them 6th Pay Revision benefits.
Page 7 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
3. It is also their contention that they had been prematurely retired by the State Government. They also contend that taking advantage of the said amendment, they have been made to retire at the age of 60 years, though they are entitled to continue upto age of 65 years through the notification dt. 31.03.2015 by treating them as non-teaching employees who ought to retire at the age of 60 years as per Section 67(a) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.
4. The Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act') defined in Section 2 (v) thereof , the term 'Teacher' as under:
"Teacher" includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instruction in ay department, college or institute maintained by the University"
5. Section 67 (a) of the Act prescribed an age of superannuation for teachers of 62 years and that of a non-teaching employee was fixed 60 years.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed as Lab Assistants in State Universities such as Ranchi University and Nilambar Pitambar University.
7. After certain litigation prior to formation of State of Jharkhand, in the then Patna High Court and in the Supreme Court they had been designated as 'Demonstrators' by the State Government1.
8. According to the petitioner in W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015, after the judgment of the Supreme Court, they all were re-designated as Demonstrators and a proceeding dt. 07.04.2003 was issued to that effect. It is also stated that thereafter 5th UGC pay scale with effect 1 CWJC No.387 of 1995 dt. 7.9.1995; CWJC No.2176 of 1996 dt. 4.4.1997; LPA No. 274 of 1997 dt. 9.12.1998; Civil Appeals 4215 and 4216 of 2002 dt. 22.7.2002 in State of Bihar and another v Radha K.Jha and others. (2002) 6 SCC 308 Page 8 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB from 01.01.1996 was given to them and the JPSC also issued recommendation for their service confirmation as Demonstrators on 02.12.2004, which was acted upon by the Ranchi University on 04.12.2004.
9. Thereafter, their Selection Grade Demonstrators' Pay was fixed by the Ranchi University on 02.02.2006 which was paid to them.
10. Petitioners contend that suddenly, Government issued a notification dt. 28.09.2007 stating that re-designated Demonstrators would not be included in the teaching cadre and would not be given benefit of teaching posts.
11. Several re-designated Demonstrators filed W.P. (S) No.4752 of 2008 and the said notification dt. 28.09.2007 was quashed by the High Court on 27.01.20102 and it was formally deleted by an Office Order dt. 24.03.2011.
12. Thereafter, impugned Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act was passed in 2011 (for short 'the 2011 Amending Act') deleting the post of "Demonstrator" from the definition of the term "Teacher" in Section 2(v) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. The said amending Act was published in the Gazette dt. 18.11.011 on 25.11.2011.
13. Section 1(ii) of the 2011 Amending Act stated:
"Section 1 (i) ..
(ii) It shall come into force on such date as the Government by notification in the Official gazette, appoint;"2
S.P. Singh and others v. State of Jharkhand and others ... 2010 (2) JCR 266 Page 9 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB
14. It substituted Section 2 (v) of the Act defining the term 'teacher' with the following definition excluding the term 'demonstrator' from the said definition. The amended section 2(v) is as under:
" "Teacher" includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, and other persons imparting instruction in ay department, college or institute maintained by the University"
15. Thus, by virtue of the amendment in 2011 the respondents contend that demonstrators ceased to be teachers and became non- teaching staff liable to retire at age of 60 years instead of 62 years.
16. Thereafter the age of retirement of teachers was raised to 65 years from 62 years by Jharkhand University Amendment Act, 2012 by amending Section 67 (a).
17. According to respondents, after this 2012 Amendment made to Section 67(a), teachers would retire at 65 years while non-teaching staff (demonstrators) would have to retire at 60 years.
18. Consequent to the 2011 Amending Act, the Ranchi University issued a notification dt. 05.11.2014 altering the age of superannuation of demonstrators to 60 years.
19. The HRD Department of the Govt. of Jharkhand issued a letter 5/v01-89/2014-61 dt. 31.1.2015 to the Nilamber Pitamber University, Palamu to amend the age of superannuation of demonstrators and the Syndicate of the said University, in its 35th meeting held on 13.3.2015, held that demonstrators/re-designated demonstrators will be treated as Non-teaching cadre of the University and their age of superannuation would be 60 years only.
20. Several of petitioners employed in the Ranchi University and the Nilamber Pitamber University and others were therefore retired on completion of age of 60 years by applying the 2011 Amending Act. Page 10 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
21. They contend that the respondents ought not to have retired them at age of 60 years and should have permitted them to continue in service till they attained the age of 65 years.
22. Petitioners in W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015 have contended in para 8 of the Writ Petition that the said 2011 Amending Act might not have come into force because in the Gazette publication dt. 25.11.2011, there is no mention of the date on which the 2011 Amending Act would come into force which was the requirement laid down in Section 1(ii) for the same to come into effect.
23. The respondents in the counter affidavits have not stated whether or not any separate notification as per Section 1(ii) of the 2011 Amending Act has been issued indicating when the said amendment would come into effect. The Additional Advocate General admitted that no such notification bringing into operation the amendment to Section 2(v) was issued.
24. The question is:
"Whether 2011 Amending Act would come into effect without issuance of such a notification under section 1(ii) thereof?"
25. We are of the opinion that the said 2011 Amending Act would not come into effect because, if the legislature has delegated the power to the executive to bring into force the Amending Act from a date to be notified by publication in the Official Gazette, without such a notification being given by the executive, it will not come into effect.
26. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India3.
3 (2003) 8 SCC 250 Page 11 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB In that case the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 received the Presidential Assent on 23-8-1995 and was notified on the same day as enacted.
Section 1(3) of the Act provided that the Act would come into force on a date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official gazette.
As the Central Government did not notify the date, the appellant filed a Public Interest Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to notify the date.
The Delhi High Court issued a limited Writ of mandamus to the Central Government to consider whether the time to enforce the Act has arrived. The Government filed an affidavit reporting compliance therewith. Therefore the Writ Petition was ordered to be disposed of.
The appellant then filed appeal in the Supreme Court with certificate of fitness under Article 134-A of the Constitution.
The appellant contended that after the Presidential assent under Article 111, the Bill was lawfully enacted and stood converted into an Act; that after being placed on the statute book by a public notification in terms of Section 366(1), the Act was out of the legislative arena; that since Parliament has not permitted appointment of different dates for different provisions of the Act, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was attracted and the Act came into force as soon as the President gave his assent to the Bill.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that no mandamus could be issued to the Central Government in the facts and Page 12 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB circumstances of the case to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force. It held:
"27. From the facts placed before us it cannot be said that the Government is not alive to the problem or is desirous of ignoring the will of Parliament. When the legislature itself had vested the power in the Central Government to notify the date from which the Act would come into force, then the Central Government is entitled to take into consideration various facts including the facts set out above while considering whether the Act should be brought into force or not. No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force, keeping in view the facts brought on record and the consistent view of this Court.
28.The submission that by virtue of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, the Act has come into force is misconceived. Section 5 of the General Clauses Act has no application. Section 5 is applicable only when the Act does not express any date with effect from which the Act would come into force. It will apply to such cases where there is no provision like Section 1(3) of the Act or Section 1(2) of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act. When the legislature itself provides that the date of coming into force of the Act would be a date to be notified by the Central Government, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act will have no application. It is plain and evident from the language of the provision. Section 5(1) provides that "where any Central Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent". Sub-section (3) provides that "unless the contrary is expressed, a Central Act or regulation shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement". In simple words it would mean that unless otherwise provided a Central Act would come into operation on the date it receives the Presidential assent and is construed as coming into operation immediately on the date preceding its commencement. Thus, if a Central Act is assented by the President on 23-8-1995 then it would be construed to have come into operation on the midnight between 22-8-1995 and 23-8-1995. Sub-section (3) has to be read as a corollary to sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) provides that the Act would come into operation on the date it receives the Page 13 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB assent of the President where a particular day w.e.f. which the Act would come into force is not prescribed whereas sub-section (3) provides the exact time of the day/night when the Act would come into force. It would not apply to cases where the legislature has delegated the power to the executive to bring into force the Act from a date to be notified by publication in the Official Gazette." (emphasis supplied)
27. Provision akin to Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is contained in Section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917. It also states:
" Section 6. Coming into operation of Act:
(1) Where any Bihar and Orissa Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor-General is first published in the Official gazette in pursuance of Section 81 of the Government of India Act, 1915.
(a) Where any Bihar Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day ,-
(i) In the case of a Bihar Act made before the commencement of the Constitution, it shall come into operation, if it is an Act of the Legislature, on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor , Governor-General or His majesty, as the case may require, is first published in the official Gazette, and if it is an Act of the Governor of Bihar, on the day on which it is first published as an Act in the Official gazette:
(ii) In the case of a Bihar Act made after the commencement of the Constitution, it shall come into operation on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor or the President, as the case may require is first published in the Official gazette. (2) Unless the contrary is expressed, a Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement." ( emphasis supplied)
28. Under Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, this statute applies in the state of Jharkhand as well. Page 14 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
29. The interpretation given to Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 by the Supreme Court in Common Cause (3 supra) equally applies to Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917.
30. Thus, unless otherwise provided, a State Act would come into operation on the date it receives the Governor's assent and is construed as coming into operation immediately on the date preceding its commencement.
31. But where the legislature has delegated the power to the executive/State Government to bring into force the Act from a date to be notified by publication in the Official Gazette, it will not come into operation until such a notification as contemplated by Section 1(ii) of the 2011 Amending Act is issued and published in the Official Gazette.
32. Therefore, since the amendment made in 2011 to Section 2(v) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (deleting the term 'demonstrator' from the definition of the term 'teacher') never came into operation in the absence of notification issued by the State Government, it was not open to the respondents to treat the demonstrators including petitioners as 'non -teaching staff' and retire them on completion of age of 60 years.
33. Admittedly upto 25.12.2012, the age of superannuation of teaching staff was only 62 years and only from 26.12.2012, by virtue of the Jharkhand University (Amendment) Act, 2012, Section 67(a) was amended enhancing the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years.
34. So, those among the demonstrators who would attain the age of 62 years as on 25.12.2012, are entitled to salary and allowances till Page 15 of 17 2025:JHHC:14140-DB they attain the age of 62 years and the respondents shall pay them the same within 8 weeks from today.
35. Those among the demonstrators who would not attain the age of 62 years by 26.12.2012 alone would have been entitled to continue upto 65 years, provided they reach the said age before 15.2.2019. So the respondents shall pay such demonstrators salary and allowances till they attain the age of 65 years within 8 weeks from today.
36. This is because of yet another development in 2018/2019 during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, which is relevant.
37. The State of Jharkhand also passed the Jharkhand State University (Amendment) Act, 2018 on 13.2.2019 (2019 Amending Act) and notified it on 15.2.2019 amending the definition of the term 'teacher' in Section 2(v) and substituting it as under:
"Section 2 (v) : "Teacher" includes Principal, University professor, College Professor, Reader/Associate professor/ Lecturer selection grade/ Lecturer Senior Scale and lecturer/ Assistant professor (Stage-I, Stage-II and Stage-III) imparting instruction in Department, College or Institute maintained by the University."
38. This amendment also excluded demonstrators from the definition of the term "teacher".
39. Section 1(iii) of the 2019 Amendment stated that "It shall come into force at once."
40. So demonstrators who have to be treated as teaching staff entitled to retire at the age of 65 years notwithstanding the 2011 Amending Act (which had not been notified), would, by virtue of 2019 Amending Act (which came into force immediately), become non- teaching staff w.e.f. 15.2.2019.
Page 16 of 17
2025:JHHC:14140-DB
41. So those demonstrators who would complete the age of 60 years after 15.2.2019 would retire on the date they would complete the age of 60 years; but those who had already crossed the age of 60 years as on 15.2.2019, but not crossed the age of 65 years, would retire on 15.2.2019.
42. So the latter would have to be paid salary and allowances till 15.2.2019 for the period they would have worked after attaining the age of 60 years and the respondents are directed to pay the same to them within 8 weeks from today.
43. In the light of the fact that the 2011 Amending Act had not been notified, the question whether it operates prospectively or retrospectively is unnecessary to be gone into.
44. The petitioners who have been denied the 6th Pay Revision as per the UGC Guidelines on the ground that the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2011 applies to them, notwithstanding the fact that it had not been notified, are held entitled to receive the same and the reasoned order dt. 19.10.2016 of the Department of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, denying them the said benefit is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the said benefits also to the eligible petitioners within 8 weeks.
45. The Writ petitions are thus allowed with the above directions.
46. All pending applications shall stand disposed off.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.F.R. Manoj/-
Page 17 of 17