Jharkhand High Court
Kamla Kant Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:10864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.3996 of 2018
-----
Kamla Kant Pathak, aged about 57 years, son of Shri Niranjan
Pathak, resident of Jharnapara, near Maruti Mandi, Hirapur, PO and
PS Hirapur, District Dhanbad ... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand, represented through Secretary, Higher
Education, Human Resource Development Department, Nepal House,
PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi
2.The Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resource Development
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, PO and PS
Doranda, District Ranchi
3.Vinoba Bhave University, through Vice Chanceller, Hazaribag, PO,
PS and District Hazaribag
4.The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, PO, PS and District
Hazaribag
5.The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, PO, PS and District
Hazaribag
6.Principal, Chas College, Chas, PO and PS Chas, District Bokaro
7.Binod Bihari Mahto, Koylanchal University, through the Registrar
Binod Bihari Mahto, Koylanchal University, PO, PS and District
Dhanbad ... Respondents.
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. Sharon Kerketta, Advocate
Mr. Bhanu Kumar No. 1
For the State : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to SC-II
For the University : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
.........
ORDER
Reserved on : 25th February, 2025 Pronounced on :9th April, 2025
The petitioner by filing this writ petition has prayed for the
following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/
direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing
the part of the observation of Hon'ble Retd. Justice S.C.
Agrawal Commission (Annexure-5) whereby though name of
2025:JHHC:10864
the petitioner was approved for absorption however, the date
of absorption has been changed from 19.09.1985 to 09.05.1988
which is wholly unjustified, uncalled for, erroneous and
unsustainable in the eye of law.
(ii) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an
appropriate writ(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing orders passed by Registrar dated
30.04.2017 and 20.05.2017 (Annexure-6 and 8/A), whereby it
has been held that as the date of absorption of the petitioner
was changed from 19.09.1985 to 09.05.1988 by the Hon'ble
Retd. Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission and the scheme of
Time Bound Promotion is applicable only to the date
23.09.1995 and as the petitioner's services has been
recognized from 09.05.1988 the claim of the petitioner for
Time Bound Promotion to the post of Reader cannot be
considered and accordingly the same was rejected, which
wholly unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law.
(iii) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an
appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding upon and directing the
respondents to grant Time Bound Promotion to the petitioner
by promoting him to the post of Reader, considering the date
of absorption of the petitioner as 18.09.1985 in the facts and
circumstances of this case, for doing conscionable justice to
the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he being duly qualified
for the post of Lecturer, was appointed by the Governing Body of
Chas College, Chas on adhoc basis in the year 1983. Once the
post was sanctioned there was an advertisement to fill up the
post on temporary basis. The petitioner applied and after the
interview before the Board, the College took a resolution to
appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer of Commerce on
the 5th Post. The petitioner was issued with an appointment letter
on 19.09.1985 and he joined thereafter. It is the case of the
petitioner that his service was also concurred by the Bihar Public
Service vide Memo No.733 dated 06.12.1985.
2025:JHHC:10864
3. A decision was taken by the State of Bihar to convert many
Colleges including Chas College into Constituent College in
phase-wise manner. It was also decided that Teachers who are
working in those affiliated Colleges against the sanctioned post
as well as proposed post will also be absorbed. His claim is that
as his name was there in the rolls, a process started for
regularization. In some colleges there were some malpractices as
names of persons who are not even teacher were included solely
for the purpose of regularisation and a vigilance inquiry was set
up. When the matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
One-Man Commission was set-up which was headed by Hon'ble
Justice S.C. Agarwal (Retd.) to look into the controversy and
disputes. The said Commission submitted the report from time
to time. As per the said report, the petitioner's case is that he
became eligible for consideration on May 1988. It was held that
petitioner was fit to be absorbed from 09.05.1988 whereas the
petitioner's claim is that he ought to have been absorbed from
19.09.1985 on the date when the petitioner was appointed.
4. Though in this writ petition the petitioner has raised
several points but at the time of hearing the petitioner only
argued that the period which he had admittedly worked as
adhoc Lecturer should have been taken into consideration for the
purpose of calculating his retiral benefits. He restricted his
prayer only on this point.
5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the
University opposes the prayer and submitted that the date of
absorption of the petitioner cannot be changed from 09.05.1988 to
19.09.1985. He heavily relied upon the report of Hon'ble Retd.
Justice S. C. Agarwal Commission and scheme of time bound
promotion which is applicable only till 23.09.1995. As the service
2025:JHHC:10864
of the petitioner was recognized from 09.05.1988, he did not
complete 10 years on 23.09.1995. He submits that there is no legal
ground to quash and set-aside the recommendation of the
Commission so far as it relates to the date of absorption of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the limited prayer which the petitioner has
raised during the time of argument that the period which he has
served as an adhoc Lecturer should be considered for the
purpose of calculating his retiral benefits, the issue thus is
whether the past service of the petitioner as adhoc can be
considered and his date of appointment as adhoc Lecturer can be
treated to be his initial date of appointment only for the purpose
of grant of post retiral benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of "The Mahatma Gandhi University and Others vs.
Rincymol Mathew" reported in (2022) 16 SCC 727 in paragraph
no.6.3 has held as below:
"6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked
continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter
her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was
appointed/promoted as Assistant Professor and thereafter
again promoted to the post of Associate Professor on regular
basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the respondent
shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the
period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant
of the benefit of CAS."
7. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in the case
of "Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi
University, Ranchi and Others" reported in 2012 (2) JCR 153
(Jhr.) has held that the legal services of temporary employees is
required to be counted and the initial date of appointment
should be taken to be the date of initial appointment and the past
service should be considered.
2025:JHHC:10864
8. Considering the aforesaid two judgments and the fact that
it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as adhoc
Lecturer and was working and later on he was absorbed, said
period during which he worked as adhoc should be considered
for the purpose of his service benefits. This period should be
counted for calculating his retiral benefit also.
9. This writ petition is thus allowed. Consequential benefits
be extended to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks
from today.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 09/ 04/2025
Tanuj/
N.A.F.R
