Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Jadav Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 478 of 2021
Dr. Jadav Dutta, aged about 66 years, son of late Bhim Chandra Dutta,
resident of Road No.- 3-A, New Subhash Colony, Mango, Jamshedpur-
831012, District-East Singhbhum ..... Petitioner
-- Versus -
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West
Singhbhum
4.The Registrar, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, West Singhbhum
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For Resp.-State :- Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III
For Kolhan University: - Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate
2./Dated:-02.03.2021
Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the
respondent-Kolhan 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 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 08.12.1981
in Tata College, Chaibasa, promoted as Reader as on 08.12.1991 and
done Ph.D in the year, 1993. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2020
from Kolhan University. The petitioner was Lecturer in the subject of
Bengali. 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 that 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
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 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. Akashdeep, the learned counsel for the Kolhan 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 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.)
Satyarthi/-
