Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2021
1 [W.P.(S) No. 08 of 2021]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
-----
W.P.(S) No.08 of 2021
-----
Ashok Kumar, aged about 66 years, son of late Rameshwar Ram,
resident of Subhash Colony, behind Mohan Petrol Pump,
PO-Govindpur,PS-Govindpur, Dist.-Dhanbad/Jharkhand
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt.
of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, PO -Doranda, and PS-Doranda,
District-Ranchi/Jharkhand
3.The Vice Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University,
Dhanbad, PO Dhanbad, PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad/Jharkhand
4.The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University,
Dhanbad, Dhanbad, PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad/Jharkhand
...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
----
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV
For B.B.M.K.University :- Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
----
3./Dated:-03.02.2021
Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Binod
Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad.
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 05.12.1981 in R.S. More College, Govindpur,
Dhanbad in the subject of History and was promoted as Reader
as on 05.12.1991 and done Ph.D in the year, 2012. The
petitioner retired on 31.12.2019 from the same college. 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 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 was 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
he has 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. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Binod Bihari Mahto
Koyalanchal University, Dhanbad 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 of 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.
11. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/-,
