Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3800 of 2020
Bipin Kumar, aged about 65 years, son of Late Sukhdeo Prasad Singh,
resident of Anandpuri Colony, P.O. College More, P.S. Sadar, District-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner
-- Versus -
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, State of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh,
5.The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh,
6. The Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West
Singhbhum
7.The Registrar, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III
For V.B. University:- Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For Kolhan University: - Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate
3./Dated:-02.02.2021
Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent State, Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent-V.B. University and Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the
respondent-Kolhan University.
2. 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.
3. 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.12000-
420- 18300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 till 30.05.2005 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.
4. Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer as on 08.03.1982 in St.
Columbas College, Hazaribagh , promoted as Reader as on 08.03.1992
and done Ph.D in the year, 2001. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2020
from Kolhan University. The petitioner was Lecturer in the subject of
Geology. 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 mentioned in the paragraph no.33 of the writ petition that 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 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 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".
5. 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 5th, 6th and 7th 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.
6. Mr. Amresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the Vinoba Bhave
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. With the above observations and direction, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
