Ahmadi Bano vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1040 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                    W.P.(S) No. 798 of 2011

                 Ahmadi Bano, w/o late Shafi Ahmad, residing at Bulaki Road,
                 Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridh, District Giridih... ...    Petitioner
                                           Versus
                 1. State of Jharkhand
                 2. Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development
                    Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
                    P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi;
                 3. Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources
                    Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project
                    Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
                    Ranchi
                 4. Sido Kanu Murmu University, Dumka through its Vice -
                    Chancellor, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka;
                 5. Registrar, Sido Kanu Murmu University, Dumka, P.O. and P.S.
                    Dumka, District Dumka
                 6. Principal/Professor In-charge, Madhupur College, Madhupur, P.O.
                    and P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar
                                                       ...        ...     Respondents
                                           ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.4 to 6 : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate

---

14/14.03.2022 Heard Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 to 6.

3. Heard Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is permitted to file affidavit pursuant to the earlier order during the course of the day. The learned counsel submits that the said affidavit is for the purposes of bringing on record the amount payable to the petitioner even if the impugned order in the present writ petition is taken as valid order, and the affidavit shows payment of admissible amount to the petitioner.

5. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"a. For quashing the order bearing memo no.489 dated 28.4.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.3) whereby the claim of the petitioner regarding rectification in admissible joining dated and payment of due amount payable to the petitioner has been illegally rejected.

b. For a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the matter of the petitioner and make rectification in the admissible date of joining and admissible date of first promotion of the petitioner, which has been wrongly mentioned as 28.02.1982 and 28.2.1992 respectively instead of his actual date of joining on 30.4.1970 and actual date of first promotion on 1.2.1985 respectively in the provisional pay fixation chart dated 8.6.2003 enclosed with the letter bearing memo No.SKU/G/505/03 dated 1.7.2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

c. For direction upon the respondents to grant and pay the following due amounts to the petitioner: -

i) Leave encashment for the period of 99 days;

ii) Difference of arrear of salary of the post of Reader from March 1993 to May 1996;

iii) Dues amount of dearness allowance for the period from 1984 to 1999;

iv) University Grants Commission arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.1.96;

v) Payment of dues provident fund amount of the petitioner for the period from May 1997 to February, 1998 amounting to Rs.12,642/-:

vi) For payment of provident fund amount of the petitioner amounting to Rs.57,785.42/- which has illegally been shown to the refundable loan unrecovered in reconciled statement of provident fund account of the petitioner dated 22.11.1999.

d. For direction upon the respondents to fix the final pension of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner in the scale of Rs.3700-5700/- (scale of Reader) basic pay being Rs.5400/- per month.

e. For payment of interest and cost."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 10.12.2019 wherein a decision of the State Government as contained in Memo No.528 dated 02.04.2013 has been annexed which is issued by the Director, Higher Education and addressed to the various Universities including respondent nos.4 and

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure - 8 has been issued in the year 2013 and the impugned order in the present case is contained in Memo No.489 dated 28.04.2010 and in view of the aforesaid Circular dated 02.04.2013, the respondents be directed to examine the case of the petitioner afresh. He also submits that the letter at Annexure - 8 to the supplementary affidavit was issued after considering the various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the exercise regarding entitlement of the petitioner and whether the petitioner's case would be governed by Annexure - 8 has to be first examined by the University and upon receiving any proposal from the University, appropriate decision has to be taken by the State

Government. He submits that the foundational facts are required to be first ascertained by the University and therefore, the University may be directed to take up the case of the petitioner in the light of Annexure 8.

8. Learned counsel for the University submits that if appropriate direction is issued to the University, the University may consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Annexure- 8 to the supplementary affidavit and this submission is being made without pre-judging the final outcome of such consideration. However, it is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 28.04.2010 has been issued prior to issuance of Annexure - 8 and consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the Annexure-8 may have some impact on the claim of the petitioner. Further, Annexure -8 has been issued by the State Government and addressed to all Universities which in turn refers to various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. This Court finds that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on 10.12.2019 bringing on record a letter bearing Memo No.528 dated 02.04.2013 issued by the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department (Higher Education Directorate), Government of Jharkhand in relation to counting of temporary service of University teachers. It has been stated by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit that by virtue of the said letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-8), the affected teachers whose temporary services were not counted, had moved before this Court in a case being Dr. (Smt.) Rafat Ara Vs. Ranchi University, Ranchi & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) JCR 380 and L.P.A. No.583/2009 Dr. Anant Kumar Akhauri Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi & Ors. and the said cases were decided in favour of them. Further it also transpires that against the decision passed in L.P.A. No.583/2009, S.L.P(Civil). No. 11707/2012 State of Jharkhand Vs. Anant Kumar Akhauri & Ors. preferred by the Department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it has been ordered to make pay fixation and ensure its approval by revising the date of appointment in all similar matters.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly

the supplementary affidavit dated 10.12.2019 containing Annexure-8, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is required to be examined afresh by the concerned respondent in order to find out as to whether the petitioner has any entitlement in the light of Annexure-8 which has been issued after issuance of the impugned order and was issued to give effect to the various judgements mentioned therein.

11. Accordingly, the Respondent University is required to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of Annexure - 8 to the supplementary affidavit and if upon examination of the facts and circumstances it is found that the case of the petitioner is covered by Annexure-8 and consequently the petitioner is found entitled to any relief pursuant thereto, a proposal to that effect be sent to the State for doing the needful.

12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a detailed representation within 2 months from today before respondent no.4 along with the records of the present case and the respondent no.4 is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and keeping in view of the letter bearing Memo No.528 dated 02.04.2013 issued by the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Department as contained in Annexure - 8 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Such reasoned order be passed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order without prejudice to the earlier order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as contained in Memo no.489 dated 28.4.2010. The reasoned order is directed to be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address be provided by the petitioner in his representation. In case, it is found that the case of the petitioner is covered by Annexure-8 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to any relief pursuant thereto, the Respondent no.4 shall take appropriate steps for sending the proposal to the competent authority of the State Government for doing the needful in accordance with law.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav