Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 17 of 2021
1. Anil Kumar, son of late Bechu Mistry
2. Bhola Mahto, son of late Ramu Mahto
3. Dr. Sudha Sinha, daughter of Late I.D. Sinha
4. Dinesh Tirkey, son of Late Abraham Tirkey
5.Kalindi Kumari, daughter of Shyam Sundar Bhagat
6. Godliva Baxla, daughter of late Marcel Baxla
7. Meena Toppo, daughter of Raju Oraon
..... Petitioners
-- Versus -
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, P.O.
Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Registrar, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, P.O.
Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the University : Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
4./Dated:-02.03.2021
Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for
the 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 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 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 petitioners submits
that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Lecturer on 03.03.1983 in
Mandar College in the in the Department of History and promoted to
the post of Reader on 23.09 1995 and done his Ph.D in the year, 1993
at present is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
University, Ranchi and retired on 31.12.2020, petitioner no. 2 was
appointed as Lecturer on 24.11.1981 in R.L.S. Yadav College, Ranchi
in the Department of Zoology and promoted to the post of Reader on
19.02.1990 at present his is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee University, Ranchi, petitioner no. 3 was appointed as
Lecturer on 12.12.1981 in J.J. College, Jhumri Telaiya in the
Department of History and promoted to the post of Reader on
12.12.1991, done her Ph.D in the year, 1991 and at present she is
Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University,
Ranchi, petitioner no. 4 was appointed as Lecturer on 10.12.1981 in
Giridih College, Giridih in the Department Psychology and promoted to
the post of Reader on 10.12.1991, done his Ph. D. in the year 2004
and at present he is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee University, Ranchi and will retire on 30.11.2021, petitioner
no. 5 was appointed as Lecturer on 21.08.1984 in Punch Pargana
Kisan College, Bundu in the department of History and promoted to the
post of Reader on 23.09.1995, done her Ph.D in the year, 1989 and at
present she is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
University, Ranchi and will retire on 31.03.2023, petitioner no. 6 was
appointed on 11.12.1981 as Lecturer in Tata College, Chaibasa in the
Department of Political Science and promoted on the post of Reader on
23.09.1995 and she has retired on 31.12.2019 as Associate Professor
from Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University, Ranchi and petitioner
no. 7 was appointed on 23.11.1981 as Lecturer in Workers College,
Jamshedpur in the Department of Geography and promoted to the
post of Reader on 23.11.1991 and done her Ph.D in 1980 and at
present she is Associate Professor in Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
University, Ranchi. 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 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
petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners by way of pick and choose
method.
7. Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, the learned counsel for the University
submits that it is in the domain of the State to consider the case of the
petitioners. 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 the
instant case accordingly.
9. In view of the above admitted position, the respondent
State is directed to consider the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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.)
Satyarthi/-
