Jharkhand High Court
Kiran Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 10 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2940 of 2020
Kiran Shukla, aged about 65 years, W/o Late Dr. Awadh Kishore
Narain, Resident of 63 MIG Colony, Adityapur-2, P.O. Adityapur, P.S.
Adityapur, District- Jamshedpur ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Higher Technical
Education & Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
2. Director, Higher and Technical Education, Department of Higher
Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
3. Kolhan University through its Registrar officiating at Chaibasa, West
Singhbhum, P.O. West Singhbhum, P.S. West Singhbhum, District-
West Singhbhum
4. Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. West Singhbhum,
P.S. West Singhbhum, District- West Singhbhum
5. Principal, G.S. College for Women, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur,
District- West Singhbhum ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashish Shekhar, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate
-----
04/10.03.2021. Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish
Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Shivam Singh,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
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 on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the
respondents to shift back the substantive date of appointment from
01.01.1981 to 16.11.1978 of the petitioner. The prayer is also made to
correct and revise 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Scale notification of the petitioner. The
prayer for consequential benefits is also made.
4. The petitioner joined as a Lecturer in Botany Department of Graduate
College for women on 16.11.1978 for which appointment letter was issued
to the petitioner on 16.10.1978. The petitioner was appointed by the
Governing body of an affiliated College of respondent no.5 namely G.S.
College, which was later made as a constituent College. The said
appointment was made pursuant to advertisement. The petitioner's service
was regularized by the notification dated 14.08.1982 under the signature of
the Registrar, Ranchi University and by the order of the Vice Chancellor of
the Ranchi University. The name of the petitioner was recommended for
regular service of the University in accordance with the statutes framed
specifically for the purpose on the recommendation of the Bihar Public
Service Commission. The service of the petitioner was approved vide
notification dated 27.04.1984. The service of the petitioner was confirmed
vide notification dated 30.08.1997. The date of appointment of the
petitioner was provided as 16.11.1978 and the date of confirmation was
01.01.1981.
5. Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
date of confirmation has been taken to be substantial date of appointment
for calculating the service of the petitioner and the previous held service
from 16.11.1978 to 01.01.1981 has never been calculated for the purposes
of promotion, pay fixation, pension and other incidental thereto. He further
submits that the petitioner is also entitled for correction and revision of 4 th,
5th and 6th Pay Scale notification, which was not provided to the petitioner.
He also submits that one Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri has already been
provided the same, who is similarly situated and the petitioner has been
left out. He further submits that the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri was
considered in view of the judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 583 of 2009,
which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 11707 of
2012. He also submits that the petitioner has already filed representation
before the University, but no decision has been taken as yet.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent nos.
3 and 4 jointly submit that the writ petition can be disposed of by giving
direction to the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with
direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent
no.3 annexing all the credentials including the judgments passed in L.P.A.
No. 583 of 2009 and S.L.P. (C) No.11707 of 2012 within a period of two
weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period,
respondent no.3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with
rules, regulations and guidelines and consider the judgments passed in
L.P.A. No. 583 of 2009 and S.L.P. (C) No.11707 of 2012 and pass
appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
8. If the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-
University shall extend the said decision to the respondent-State of
Jharkhand for the needful.
9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
