Dr. Amir Mustafa Siddiqui vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 573 Jhar

                                        1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(S) No. 3874 of 2020

----

Dr. Amir Mustafa Siddiqui, aged about 64 years, son of Dr. Shane Ahmad Siddiqui, resident of Azad Road, (S.S.Siddiqui Road), PO Hazaribagh, PS Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh, 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, Vinoba Bhave University, PO Hazaribagh, PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

4.The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, PO Hazaribagh, PS Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate For Resp.University:- Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary, Advocate

----

3/08.02.2021 Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. P.C. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State and

Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary, 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 petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 19.11.1981 in

the subject of Urdu in J.J.College, Jhumritiliya. Thereafter he has been

promoted to the post of Reader on 19.11.1991 and at present the

nomenclature of Reader has been changed as Associate Professor hence

he is presently working as HOD in Urdu Department, Vinoba Bhave

University, Hazaribagh. The petitioner has done his PhD on 12.2.1986. 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. Mrs. I.Sen Choudhary, the learned counsel for the

respondent 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.

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/