Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kishore Jha 'Vibhakar' vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 917 of 2019
----
Ram Kishore Jha 'Vibhakar' ......Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director Higher Education, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Vice Chancellor, Sido Kanu Murmu University, Dumka
4. The Registrar, Sido Kanu Murmu Unviersity, Dumka
5. The Finance Officer, Sido Kanu Murmu University, Dumka
6. The Principal, Deoghar College, Deoghar --- Respondents
-----
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, G.A.-II
---
05 /21.07.2022 I.A. No. 4320 of 2020
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and State on the prayer for
condonation of delay of 107 days in preferring the instant Memo of Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not be
contacted by his counsel after dismissal of the writ petition as he had gone to
native village, Madhura in Madhubani District. Thereafter, on being
approached the appeal was drafted and filed through the present learned
counsel, which has occasioned some delay, but it is not deliberate. Appellant
has a good case on merits, however, he would suffer irreparably, if the delay is
not condoned.
Learned counsel for the State has objected to the prayer.
On consideration of explanation and submission of the parties, delay is
condoned.
Consequently, the instant I.A stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 917 of 2019
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and State on the main appeal.
2. Learned Single Judge has by the impugned judgment dated 29th July,
2019 dismissed the writ petition. Writ petitioner retired on 31st March, 1996. He
approached the writ court in the year 2014 with the following reliefs:
(i) By a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other more
appropriate writ(s), order(s), rule(s), direction(s) command
the Respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner
pension, who retired from the post of University Professor
in the subject- Sanskrit, on the 1st of April, 1996, and to
pay the arrears in one lump from 01.04.1996 till May,
2002;
(ii) Further to pay the difference of salary in the pay scale of a
Reader, and that of a University Professor to which post the
petitioner was promoted on 24.11.1988 to 31.03.1996, till
the date of petitioner's retirement from service in 1996;
(iii) Still further, the respondents may be directed to pay the
petitioner's salary (monthly emoluments) in the scale of
University Professor from 24.11.1988, when he was
promoted to the post by the erstwhile Bhagalpur University,
till 31.03.1996 after deducting the amount paid to him in
scale of a Reader;
(iv) By another appropriate writ the respondents may further be
directed to pay the petitioner all the benefits of the Second
Time Bound Promotion which was made effective in case of
the other university professors in different subjects as per
screening done under Government Notification No. 53 of
2006 issued under the signature of the Registrar, Sido Kanu
Murmu University, Dumka,
(v) Command the respondents to give all retiral benefits to the
petitioner in the scale of a University Professor and pay all
dues including pension, dues on revised scale of a University
Professor, with interest at least at Bank's rate on the overall
dues of the petitioner within a time limit;
3. Petitioner's promotion to the post of Professor on time bound
basis vide office order dated 23rd October, 1992 was subject to
recommendation of Screening Committee of Public Service Commission. It
was not recommended by the Screening Committee and the Commission
consequently, such promotion ceased to be effective. It is not in dispute that
Notification no. 63/2006 dated 16th November, 2006 approving the promotion
of Readers to the post of University Professor on recommendation of JPSC
did not contain the name of the petitioner. Petitioner has not challenged the
said notification in the writ petition which was preferred further eight years in
the year 2014 seeking difference of salary in the pay scale of Reader and
University Professor from 1st December, 1988 to 31st March, 1996 and also
fixation of his pension with effect from 1 st April, 1996 taking into account his
promotion to the post of University Professor in the subject of Sanskrit.
Leaned Single Judge declined the prayer taking into note all these facts and
also the gross delay in approaching the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that serious injustice
has been caused to the petitioner, who is now 85 years old. The name of the
appellant was left out without any basis as the subject of Sanskrit was not
even considered for recommendation though all other persons in the list of
time bound promotions were granted that benefit upon recommendation of the
screening committee and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. At the
fag-end of his life he would be unfairly discriminated if admissible pensionary
benefit in the scale of professor is not granted to him with arrears. Learned
counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer. He submits that basis
for claiming pension in the scale of Professor is non-existence since time
bound promotion granted to the appellant was never approved by the
screening committee and recommended by the JPSC. Appellant has not even
laid any challenge to the said notification or cause of action that would have
arisen in the year 2006 after issuance of notification dated 16th November,
2006. He has approached this Court after eight years of the said notification
and almost after 18 years of his retirement. The claim is legally untenable in
law.
5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant and State and taken note of the materials on record. We have also
perused the impugned judgment. We find that the appellant has approached
the writ court only on the basis of conditional time bound promotion granted
vide office order dated 23rd October, 1992 which did not became effective as
his name was not recommended by J.P.S.C. Petitioner if aggrieved did not lay
any challenge to that cause of action and that too timely. Learned Single Judge
has taken note of these facts and also gross delay in approaching this Court
and declined to interfere in the matter. We do not find any error in the
impugned judgment calling for interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
jk/
