Jharkhand High Court
Reena Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2021
1 [W.P.(S) No. 4370 of 2020]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(S) No. 4370 of 2020
----
Reena Das, aged about 48 years, wife of late Subroto Kumar Das, resident
of G-507, Pragati Enclave, J.C. Mullick Road, Hirapur, PO Dhanbad, PS
Dhanbad, District 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, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4.The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad, PO
Dhanbad, PS Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand ...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Manav Poddar, Advocate
For Resp.-BBMU Univ.Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
----
3/08.02.2021 Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Manav Poddar, the learned counsel for the respondent
State and Mr. A.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent
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 husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer
as on 26.11.1981 in Sindri College, Sindri in the subject of Physics and
was promoted as Reader as on 26.11.1991. The husband of the
petitioner died on 26.07.2020. 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. The State counsel submits that the Government came out
with a notification directing all the Universities to state that the total
number of Readers in the entire State in various Universities who were
granted promotion under time bound promotion scheme meaning thereby
after the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPAs.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. With the above observations and direction, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
12. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
