Dr. U.K. Bakshi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 950 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P. (S) No.5811 of 2016
                                       ------

1. Dr. U.K. Bakshi, son of late Bhuneshwar Prasad, resident of 21, River Side, Near Lala Lajpat Rai, Middle School, Kadru, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi

2. Most. Anita Mishra, aged about 65 years, wife of late Prof. Y.C. Mishra, resident of H-1/15, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi-834002

3. Most. Sumati Mishra, aged about 63 years wife of late Prof. Shiv Shankar Mishra, resident of 403, Lavanya Apartment, Tagore Hill Road, Morahbadi, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi-

               834008                               ....   Petitioners
                                            Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

2. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. The Director, Higher Education, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

4. The O.S.D. to His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand & Chancellor of Universities of Jharkhand, Raj Bhawan, Ranchi-1, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi

5. The Ranchi University Ranchi, through its Vice Chancellor, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

6. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand

.... .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V For Ranchi University : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate

------

12/25.02.2021 Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr.

Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. A.K.

Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi 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 petitioners have preferred this writ petition for modification

of order dated 19.12.2012 as per the direction passed in W.P.(S) No. 1654

of 2013 and analogues cases. Further prayer has been made for payment of

pensionary benefit to the petitioners.

4. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed 01.08.1967 and retired as a

Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy and Principal of Yogda

Satsang Mahavidhyalya College, Jagarnathpur, Dhurwa, Ranchi on

31.10.2003. The petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 01.08.1967 and

retired as a Professor and Head of the Department of Economics of the

aforesaid College on 31.07.2004.

Now petitioner no. 2 has been substituted by his wife as during

pendency of the writ petition petitioner no. 2 has died.

Petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 23.09.1972 of the aforesaid

college as a Lecturer, Department of English and retired on 31.05.2005 as

Associate Professor and Head of the Department of English of the aforesaid

College.

Now petitioner no. 3 has been substituted by his wife as during

pendency of the writ petition petitioner no. 3 has died.

The petitioners were working in Government Aided Minority

Colleges. The Minority Colleges in the State of Jharkhand are established

and administered under Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The

Minority Colleges are run and administered by the Members of the Minority,

but the Governing Body are constituted by the representative of the

Universities as well as the representative of the Government also. The

University always looks after the affairs of the Minority Colleges that it is in

good administration with ideal statutory service condition for its teachers.

5. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that Section 71 of the University Act provides pension,

gratuity, insurance and provident fund etc. He submits that Notification

19.12.2012 was issued by the Government of Jharkhand pursuant to that

the petitioners will be entitled for such benefits w.e.f. 19.12.2012. He

submits that some of the aggrieved teachers have approached this Court in

W.P.(S) No. 1654 of 2013 which was decided on 12.08.2016 by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court whereby direction was issued to the

respondents to reconsider and take a decision afresh, in accordance with law

issuing corrigendum so that the notification dated 19.12.2012 shall apply in

the same and similar manner with regard to the Teaching/Non--Teaching

Staffs, who have been appointed on or before 01.12.2004 and retired prior

to the issuance of notification dated 19.12.2012, within a period of 16

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned senior

counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment of the Co-ordinate

Bench was taken before the Division Bench by the respondent-State in L.P.A.

No. 616 of 2017. He submits that the Division Bench has considered this

aspect of the matter that this judgment is in rem and not in-personem in

para 7 of the said judgment. He submits that after considering all aspects of

the matter, the Division Bench has been pleased to uphold the judgment of

Co-ordinate Bench and dismissed the L.P.A. He submits that aggrieved with

this, the State approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special

Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 6147 of 2020 which was dismissed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that thereafter contempt petition was

filed against the respondent-State and when the order was not complied,

the respondent-State was imposed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to

each petitioner. Thereafter, the State has paid cost along with 50% arrears

of the petitioners and the rest amount shall be paid in the month of April,

2021 and the contempt case was posted for May, 2021. Learned senior

counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the matter has been set at

rest, there is no question of any impediment in releasing the amount in

question in favour of the petitioners.

6. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State submits that the order has already been complied in the

case of some of the petitioners of the earlier round litigation. He submits

that this matter can be disposed of in the light of earlier order of the Court.

7. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-University submits that the amount in question are required to

be released to the University from the Government and the same shall be

released in favour of the petitioner.

8. At this stage, Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners submits that the college has already calculated the amount and

demand has been placed before the University.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submission of

the learned counsel for the parties particularly para -7 of the judgment of

the aforesaid L.P.A wherein it has been held that judgment is in rem and

not in-personem. The order is also applied in the case of the petitioners. The

matter has already been set at rest and travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. In the contempt proceeding the State has already paid 50% arrears

of the petitioners of that case. Thus, there is no impediment to dispose of

this writ petition with direction to the respondent-State to start current

pension of the petitioner within eight weeks. The arrears will be calculated

and shall be paid to the petitioners within 12 weeks.

10. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands

disposed of.

11. I.A if any also stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/-