Jharkhand High Court
Asha Rani Kerketta; vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1088 of 2021
1. Asha Rani Kerketta;
2. Anita Anju Khess;
3. Balbir Kerketta ... .... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi
3. The Director, Higher Education, Higher & Technical Education
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi
4. The Management of Gossner College, Ranchi through its Secretary, Club
Road, Ranchi
5. The Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Registrar.
..... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, AC to GP-IV
For the Ranchi University: Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate
------
02/25.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have approached this Court with a prayer for a
direction upon the respondents to grant them pay scale of lecturer as per 6th Pay
Revision Committee whereas petitioner no. 3 has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to grant pay scale of promotion in Lecturer (Senior Scale) as per 6 th
Pay Revision Committee. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to grant them all consequential benefits arising out of 6 th Pay
Revision with arrears of salary and to extend all benefits to them in view of
Judgment and direction of this Court in CWJC No. 3495 of 1992 (R) and affirmed
in LPA No. 158 of 2000 (R).
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the issues involved in this case is now no more res-integra
and has already been decided in the case of State of Bihar & Others. Vs. Syed
Asad Raza & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2425 wherein at paragraph no. 5, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"5. A reading of the above clearly indicates that after coming
into force of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 w.e.f. May 16,
1976, it is enjoined that for appointment of a teacher prior
approval of the State Government is necessary. However,
exception have been engrafted in respect of (a) the institution run
by the State Government and (b) institution established by a
religious or linguistic minority. Even the non-obstante clause in
sub-section (2) also makes exceptions to the clauses (a) and (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act. Thus, it could be seen
that for the creation of a post in a minority institution for the
appointment thereof, prior approval of the University Vice-
Chancellor or the State Government is not a pre-condition. The
question, therefore, is; whether such an appointee, the first
respondent is entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. By
operation of Clause 91) of Article 30, all minorities, whether
based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish
an educational institutions of their own choice. Under clause (2)
of Article 30, the state shall not, in granting aid to educational
institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on
the ground that it is under the management of a minority,
whether, based on religion or language."
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that similarly situated
persons namely Dr. Jitendra Prasad Sinha and Smt. Manju Khalkho filed a writ
application before this Court for similar reliefs being C.W.J.C. No. 3495 of 1992
(R) and this Court, after relying on Judgment passed in the case of Syed Asad
Raza (Supra) passed the following order:
"9. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I
hold that the competent authority (State) is bound to sanction/
grant-in-aid in respect of the post in question, subject to such
regulation as may be available under the law for use of grant etc.
10. The petitioners are entitled for a salary out of such grant-in-
aid. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to release appropriate
grant in favour of the College in question for payment of salary
to the incumbents who are holding the post sanctioned vide letter
no. 335 dated 1st May, 1967 within a period of six months, at
least from the date the posts were so sanctioned i.e. 1 st May,
1987. On receipt of such amount, the college authorities are
liable to pay salary to the incumbents who are holding such
sanctioned post including the arrears of salary from 1 st May,
1987."
Learned counsel further submits that relying upon the aforesaid
Judgments, writ petition filed by Arbind Kumar Lal and others in W.P.(S) No.
2620 of 2015 has been disposed of by a Bench of this Court and as such, similar
benefits may be extended to these petitioners also.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the
admitted position and submits that if case of the petitioners will be found on
similar footing, similar benefits would be granted to them what has been granted
to Dr. Jitendra Prasad Sinha and Smt. Manju Khalkho.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the materials available on record, it appears that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Syed Asad Raza (Supra) has already held that the competent authority is bound
to sanction grant-in-aid subject to such regulations as may be available under the
law to regulate the recruitment of the service administration. The Hon'ble Apex
Court further held in the said Judgment that by statutory operation the claimants
are entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. From records, it also appear that
after relying the aforesaid Judgment, this Court in the case of Dr. Jitendra Prasad
(supra) held that the State is bound to sanction/ grant-in-aid in respect of the post
in question, subject to such regulation as may be available under the law for use
of grant etc. Respectfully relying on the aforesaid Judgments, the instant
application is allowed and petitioners are entitled for salary out of such grant-in-
aid.
Accordingly, this Court directs the concerned respondents to release
appropriate sanction/ grant-in-aid in favour of the college in question for payment
of salary to the incumbents who are holding the sanctioned post within a period of
four months and on receipt of such amount the college authorities are directed to
pay salary to the petitioners who are holding such sanctioned post including the
arrears of salary for which they are legally entitled within a further period of two
months. Time and again pleas has been taken by the University that State is not
releasing the funds. I hereby direct the State to release appropriate funds for its
disbursement, as directed above, to the petitioners as per entitlement. Let the
entire exercise be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/P
