Vijayendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 487 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

             W.P.(S) No. 92 of 2021

Vijayendra Kumar Singh, aged about 64 years, son Ram Jaam Singh,
resident of "Swastic Apartment", Flat No. 503, 6th Floor, Near Karmel
Junion School, P.O. Sonari, P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand                                   ..... Petitioner
                          -- Versus -
   1.The State of Jharkhand
   2. Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, State of
   Jharkhand, Ranchi
   3. Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical
   Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
   4.The Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West
   Singhbhum
   5.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. Neil Abhijt Toppo, Advocate For Kolhan University: - Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate

2./Dated:-02.02.2021

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

Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State and Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the

respondent- 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 07.01.1982 and

joined on 11.01.1982 in S.B. College, Chandil, promoted as Reader as

on 11.01.1990 and done Ph.D on 16.07.1988. The petitioner was

going to retire on 31.01.2022. The petitioner was Lecturer in the

subject of Economics. 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. He submits 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. 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.

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/-