Jharkhand High Court
Ganga Prasad Choudhary & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 21 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 5046 of 2013
Ganga Prasad Choudhary & Others ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, Adv.
: Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate
---
11/21.09.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an order dated
04.03.2011 was passed, wherein the petitioners, who are the
demonstrators, working in BIT Sindri, were to be granted pay revision
under 5th pay UGC scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the petitioners have
interalia claimed the arrear of pay in terms of the said letter dated
04.03.2011 for the period from 01.01.1996 to 14.11.2000 as the
petitioners had retired prior to 15.11.2000.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that subsequently, order of
recovery dated 16.11.2012 was passed for the amount of Rs. 18,619/-
which was paid to one of the petitioners for the period from
01.01.1996 to 31.03.1997 in connection with which an order of stay
was passed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have not
been paid in terms of order dated 04.03.2011 and therefore, one of the
prayers made in the writ petition is in connection with the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand
has submitted that as per paragraph-12 of the counter-affidavit, the
Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand has already rejected the
claim of the petitioners on the ground that the scale of UGC is not
payable to the lecturers of the BIT Sindri and hence there was no
necessity of allowing scale of lecturers to the petitioners. It has further
been stated in the counter-affidavit that the scale of the lecturers of
BIT Sindri has been fixed by the State Government and the same is
not based on the recommendations of the UGC. However, no such
order has been annexed by the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the State is directed to file a counter-
affidavit bringing on record the order which has been referred in para-
12 of the counter-affidavit dated 08.05.2017.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-BIT
Sindri has referred to paragraph-14 of the counter-affidavit dated
30.05.2017 to submit that the demonstrators were guided by the
regulations of UGC till 1986, however in the year 1986, the AICTE
(All India Council for Technical Education) came into existence and
the technical institutions fell under the administrative control of the
AICTE. Under the guidelines of the AICTE, there was no post of
demonstrators and in terms of the said recommendations, no further
appointments were made on the post of demonstrators. However, the
petitioners were appointed prior to 1986, they continued on the post of
demonstrators. It has also been stated in para-15 of the counter-
affidavit that in the writ petition, the petitioner has referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
522/79, but a copy of the same has not been produced before this
Court. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 17 of the
counter-affidavit to submit that it is wrong to say that
recommendations of the 5th pay revision as recommended by the UGC
was made applicable to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1996. In fact the
AICTE made recommendations separately and the said
recommendations on being accepted, were implemented by the State
Government. He has also referred to paragraph-19 of the counter-
affidavit to submit that in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Umakant
Joshi reported in (2012) 11 SCC 164, it has been held that the liability
for payment for the period to reorganization of the State, cannot be
fastened on the successor State.
7. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there
are number of judgments passed by this Court treating the
demonstrators as teachers which he shall produce on the next date of
hearing. He shall also produce a copy of the judgment passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 522/1979 by the Hon'ble Patna High Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted time
till 19th October, 2022 to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent-BIT Sindri. The affidavit of the State as
aforesaid should also be filed latest by 19th October, 2022.
9. Post this case on 2nd November, 2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
