Jharkhand High Court

Brajesh Kumar Verma vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                    2025:JHHC:14140-DB



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P. (S) No.2631 of 2018
Brajesh Kumar Verma, aged about 58 years, son of Late Sambhoo
Nath Verma, resident of Veer Kuwar Singh Colony, Near Arra
Machine, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
                                                     ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Human
   Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
   Doranda, Ranchi P.O. & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi;
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
   Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi P.Ο. &
   P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Higher and Technical Education,
   Project Building, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi P.O. & P.S-
   Doranda, District-Ranchi;
4. Ranchi University, through the Registrar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
   Kotwali, District-Ranchi;
5. The Registrar, Ranchi University, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
   District-Ranchi;
6. Principal, Yogada Satsang College, Jagarnathpur, P.O. & P.S.-
   Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
                                                 ...     Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.4548 of 2015
1. Ananda Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Radai Singh,
   resident of Village Chirgora, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Dhalbhumgarh,
   District East Singhbhum.
2. Ram Kumar Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Shyam
   Narayan Singh, resident of Dahigora Pal Colony, P.O. Ghatshila,
   P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum.
                                                    ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
   District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
   Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
   Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
                           Page 1 of 17
                                                     2025:JHHC:14140-DB



4. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
   Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
                                             ...  Respondents
                        WITH
                W.P. (S) No.4552 of 2015
Akhileshwar Mishra, aged about 63 years, son of Late D.N. Mishra,
resident of Chanakyapuri, Old Purulia Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S.
Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
                                                    ...   Petitioner
                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
   District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
   Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
   Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
4. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
   Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
                                                ...     Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015
Surendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ram Gulam Singh, R/o Gharaunda
Apartment, P.O. Mango, P.S. Ulidih Mango, Dist- East Singhbhum.
                                                     ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
   Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Nilambar Pitambar University through the Vice Chancellor,
   Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District
   Palamau;
5. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S.
   Medininagar, District Palamau;
                                                 ...     Respondents
                        WITH

                           Page 2 of 17
                                                       2025:JHHC:14140-DB



                   W.P. (S) No.1323 of 2017
Shri Radha Nath Jha, son of Late Jagannath Jha, Hinoo, resident of
Saket Nagar (Awadhpuri, Doranda), Post Office and Police Station-
Doranda and District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
                                                       ...   Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department,
   Human Resource Development Department, Government of
   Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal House, Post Office and Police
   Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, Post Office-G.P.O.,
   Police Station-Kotwali and District-Ranchi.
4. The Principal, Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya, affiliated to
   Ranchi University, Jagarnathpur, Dhurwa Ranchi, Post Office and
   Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
                                                   ...     Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.7736 of 2017
1. Sushil Kumar, S/o. Sachida Nand Singh, R/o Ward No. 9, Village
   Bishunpur, Naharpar, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa.
2. Anjani Kumar Roy @ Anjani Roy, S/o. Late R.P. Roy, R/o Ward
   No.9, Village Bishunpur, Naharpar, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa,
   District Garhwa;
3. Ganesh Choudhary, S/o Ram Dhari Choudhary, R/o Village Rabda,
   P.O. Harinamarh, P.S. Chainpur, District Daltonganj at Palamau;
4. Arun Kumar Tiwary, S/o Bhardwaj Tiwary, R/o Dr. Bishundeo
   Dubey Road, Hamidganj, P.O. Hamidganj, P.S. Daltonganj, District
   Daltonganj at Palamu;
5. Ram Akbal Gupta, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, R/o Near Mission
   Girl School, Abadganj, Ward No. 23, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj,
   District Daltonganj at Palamu;
6. Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava, S/o late Yugeshwar Prasad Sinha, R/o
   Devi Mandap, Near Shive Mandir, Ranchi Road, Redma Chiyanki,
   P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Daltonganj at Palamu;
7. Arvind Kumar, S/o Ramnath Prasad Jaiswal, R/o House No. 16,
   Ward No. 13, Plot No. 342. Pathak Mhalla, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.
   Garhwa, District Garhwa;
8. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Ganesh Tiwari, R/o Jhoora, P.O.
   Hoor, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa;


                           Page 3 of 17
                                                       2025:JHHC:14140-DB



9. Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ramji Prasad Gupta, R/o Ward 1,
   village Ranka Kala, P.O. Ranka, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa;
10.Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Lal Das, R/o Ward No.
   8, Village Vishunpur, P.O. Nawada, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa;
11.Abhimanyu Kumar Roy, S/o Vishwanath Prasad Roy, R/o
   Sultanpur, P.O. & P.S. Sultanpur, District Vaishli (Bihar);
12.Ashutosh Mishra, S/o Nandlal Mishra, R/o Ward No. 2, Beside
   Main Panki Road, Baralota South, Janakpuri, P.O. & P.S.
   Daltonganj, District Daltonganj at Palamu.
                                                        ...  Petitioners
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
   Jaganathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Nilambar Pitambar University, through the Vice Chancellor,
   Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District
   Palamau;
5. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, P.O. & P.S.
   Medininagar, District Palamau;
                                                    ...     Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.3206 of 2018
Niranjanı Kumar, Aged about 60 Years, S/o Late Mahendra Narayan
Choudhary, R/o Servoday Path, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur,
P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist-East Singhbhum.
                                                    ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
   Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Kolhan University through the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University,
   P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum;


                            Page 4 of 17
                                                       2025:JHHC:14140-DB



5. The Registrar, Kolhan University, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District
   West Singhbhum;
                                                ...   Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.461 of 2019
Chandra Bhushan Prasad Roy, Aged about 60 Years, S/o Late Vidya
Sagar Roy, R/o K.S. College, Saraikella, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, Dist-
East Singhbhum.
                                                      ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi;
3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
   Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;
4. Kolhan University through the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University,
   P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum;
5. The Registrar, Kolhan University, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District
   West Singhbhum;
                                                  ...     Respondents
                         WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.558 of 2019
Anita Toppo, aged about 60 years, wife of Prashant Kumar, resident of
Holding No. 96, Road No.-06, Jawahar Nagar, Near Bible College,
Azad Nagar, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Mango, District East
Singhbhum.
                                                       ...   Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office
   at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
   Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
   Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Kolhan University, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.
   Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.
4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, near Shaheed Chowk,
   P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
                                                   ...     Respondents

                            Page 5 of 17
                                                       2025:JHHC:14140-DB



                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.880 of 2019
Mukh Lal Singh aged about 59 years 11 months, son of Late Sri
Naresh Singh, resident of behind Block Colony, Link Road,
Piprakalan, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa.
                                                       ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office
   at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
   Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
   Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
   and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, Medininagar,
   Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau.
                                                   ...     Respondents
                          WITH
                 W.P. (S) No.4206 of 2019
Bhubneshwar Prasad Gupta, aged about 68 years, son of Late Jiya Lal
Shah resident of "Geeta Niwas" near Matri Ashram, Jamtara, P.O.,P.S.
& Dist. Jamtara.
                                                        ...   Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
   Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
   Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building P.O & P.S:-
   Dhurwa, Dist:- Ranchi
3. The Sinddhu Kanhu Murmu University, through its Vice-
   Chancellor, having its office at Dumka, P.O & P.S &, Dist: Dumka.
4. The Registrar, Sinddhu Kanhu Murmu University, having its office
   at Dumka, P.O & P.S &, Dist:- Dumka.
5. Jamtara College through its Principal having its office at P.O.P.S.
   Jamtara Dist Jamtara
                                                    ...     Respondents
                          ---------


CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                        ---------
For the Petitioners:    Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
                        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                            Page 6 of 17
                                                          2025:JHHC:14140-DB



                          Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate
                          Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate
                          Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate
                          Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Advocate
                          Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate
                          Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
                          Mr. Ganesh Pathak, Advocate
                          Mr. Mohit Mani Kishore, Advocate
                          Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
                          Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
                          Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
                          Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents:      Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA
                          Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
                          Mr. Abdul Allam, Sr. Advocate
                          Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
                          Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
                          Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
                          Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
                          Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate
                          Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A
                          Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A

                          ---------
Reserved on: 22.04.2025                 Pronounced on: 09/05/2025



Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the

Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2011, amending the

definition of the term 'teacher' under Section 2(v) in the Jharkhand

State University Act, 2000, deleting the term "Demonstrators" from

the said definition; and making them as persons holding Non-Teaching

Posts, causing them to retire at age of 60 years instead of being

allowed to render service till they attained the age of 65 years.

2. They also seek quashing of the order dt. 19.10.2016 passed by

the Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher and Technical

Education, Government of Jharkhand denying them 6th Pay Revision

benefits.

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

3. It is also their contention that they had been prematurely retired

by the State Government. They also contend that taking advantage of

the said amendment, they have been made to retire at the age of 60

years, though they are entitled to continue upto age of 65 years through

the notification dt. 31.03.2015 by treating them as non-teaching

employees who ought to retire at the age of 60 years as per Section

67(a) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.

4. The Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act')

defined in Section 2 (v) thereof , the term 'Teacher' as under:

"Teacher" includes Principal, University Professor, College

Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons

imparting instruction in ay department, college or institute

maintained by the University"

5. Section 67 (a) of the Act prescribed an age of superannuation for

teachers of 62 years and that of a non-teaching employee was fixed 60

years.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed as Lab

Assistants in State Universities such as Ranchi University and

Nilambar Pitambar University.

7. After certain litigation prior to formation of State of Jharkhand,

in the then Patna High Court and in the Supreme Court they had been

designated as 'Demonstrators' by the State Government1.

8. According to the petitioner in W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015, after

the judgment of the Supreme Court, they all were re-designated as

Demonstrators and a proceeding dt. 07.04.2003 was issued to that

effect. It is also stated that thereafter 5th UGC pay scale with effect

CWJC No.387 of 1995 dt. 7.9.1995; CWJC No.2176 of 1996 dt. 4.4.1997; LPA No. 274 of 1997 dt. 9.12.1998; Civil Appeals 4215 and 4216 of 2002 dt. 22.7.2002 in State of Bihar and another v Radha K.Jha and others. (2002) 6 SCC 308

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

from 01.01.1996 was given to them and the JPSC also issued

recommendation for their service confirmation as Demonstrators on

02.12.2004, which was acted upon by the Ranchi University on

04.12.2004.

9. Thereafter, their Selection Grade Demonstrators' Pay was fixed

by the Ranchi University on 02.02.2006 which was paid to them.

10. Petitioners contend that suddenly, Government issued a

notification dt. 28.09.2007 stating that re-designated Demonstrators

would not be included in the teaching cadre and would not be given

benefit of teaching posts.

11. Several re-designated Demonstrators filed W.P. (S) No.4752 of

2008 and the said notification dt. 28.09.2007 was quashed by the High

Court on 27.01.20102 and it was formally deleted by an Office Order

dt. 24.03.2011.

12. Thereafter, impugned Jharkhand State Universities

(Amendment) Act was passed in 2011 (for short 'the 2011 Amending

Act') deleting the post of "Demonstrator" from the definition of the

term "Teacher" in Section 2(v) of the Jharkhand State University Act,

2000. The said amending Act was published in the Gazette dt.

18.11.011 on 25.11.2011.

13. Section 1(ii) of the 2011 Amending Act stated:

"Section 1 (i) ..

(ii) It shall come into force on such date as the Government by notification in the Official gazette, appoint;"

S.P. Singh and others v. State of Jharkhand and others ... 2010 (2) JCR 266

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

14. It substituted Section 2 (v) of the Act defining the term 'teacher'

with the following definition excluding the term 'demonstrator' from

the said definition. The amended section 2(v) is as under:

" "Teacher" includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, and other persons imparting instruction in ay department, college or institute maintained by the University"

15. Thus, by virtue of the amendment in 2011 the respondents

contend that demonstrators ceased to be teachers and became non-

teaching staff liable to retire at age of 60 years instead of 62 years.

16. Thereafter the age of retirement of teachers was raised to 65

years from 62 years by Jharkhand University Amendment Act, 2012

by amending Section 67 (a).

17. According to respondents, after this 2012 Amendment made to

Section 67(a), teachers would retire at 65 years while non-teaching

staff (demonstrators) would have to retire at 60 years.

18. Consequent to the 2011 Amending Act, the Ranchi University

issued a notification dt. 05.11.2014 altering the age of superannuation

of demonstrators to 60 years.

19. The HRD Department of the Govt. of Jharkhand issued a letter

5/v01-89/2014-61 dt. 31.1.2015 to the Nilamber Pitamber University,

Palamu to amend the age of superannuation of demonstrators and the

Syndicate of the said University, in its 35th meeting held on 13.3.2015,

held that demonstrators/re-designated demonstrators will be treated as

Non-teaching cadre of the University and their age of superannuation

would be 60 years only.

20. Several of petitioners employed in the Ranchi University and the

Nilamber Pitamber University and others were therefore retired on

completion of age of 60 years by applying the 2011 Amending Act.

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

21. They contend that the respondents ought not to have retired

them at age of 60 years and should have permitted them to continue in

service till they attained the age of 65 years.

22. Petitioners in W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015 have contended in para

8 of the Writ Petition that the said 2011 Amending Act might not have

come into force because in the Gazette publication dt. 25.11.2011,

there is no mention of the date on which the 2011 Amending Act

would come into force which was the requirement laid down in Section

1(ii) for the same to come into effect.

23. The respondents in the counter affidavits have not stated

whether or not any separate notification as per Section 1(ii) of the 2011

Amending Act has been issued indicating when the said amendment

would come into effect. The Additional Advocate General admitted

that no such notification bringing into operation the amendment to

Section 2(v) was issued.

24. The question is:

"Whether 2011 Amending Act would come into effect without issuance of such a notification under section 1(ii) thereof?"

25. We are of the opinion that the said 2011 Amending Act would

not come into effect because, if the legislature has delegated the power

to the executive to bring into force the Amending Act from a date to be

notified by publication in the Official Gazette, without such a

notification being given by the executive, it will not come into effect.

26. Similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Common

Cause v. Union of India3.

(2003) 8 SCC 250

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

In that case the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 received the

Presidential Assent on 23-8-1995 and was notified on the same day as

enacted.

Section 1(3) of the Act provided that the Act would come into

force on a date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official

gazette.

As the Central Government did not notify the date, the

appellant filed a Public Interest Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court

seeking a Writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to

notify the date.

The Delhi High Court issued a limited Writ of mandamus to

the Central Government to consider whether the time to enforce the

Act has arrived. The Government filed an affidavit reporting

compliance therewith. Therefore the Writ Petition was ordered to be

disposed of.

The appellant then filed appeal in the Supreme Court with

certificate of fitness under Article 134-A of the Constitution.

The appellant contended that after the Presidential assent under

Article 111, the Bill was lawfully enacted and stood converted into an

Act; that after being placed on the statute book by a public notification

in terms of Section 366(1), the Act was out of the legislative arena; that

since Parliament has not permitted appointment of different dates for

different provisions of the Act, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act,

1897 was attracted and the Act came into force as soon as the President

gave his assent to the Bill.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that no

mandamus could be issued to the Central Government in the facts and

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

circumstances of the case to issue the notification contemplated under

Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force.

It held:

"27. From the facts placed before us it cannot be said that the Government is not alive to the problem or is desirous of ignoring the will of Parliament. When the legislature itself had vested the power in the Central Government to notify the date from which the Act would come into force, then the Central Government is entitled to take into consideration various facts including the facts set out above while considering whether the Act should be brought into force or not. No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force, keeping in view the facts brought on record and the consistent view of this Court.

28.The submission that by virtue of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, the Act has come into force is misconceived. Section 5 of the General Clauses Act has no application. Section 5 is applicable only when the Act does not express any date with effect from which the Act would come into force. It will apply to such cases where there is no provision like Section 1(3) of the Act or Section 1(2) of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act. When the legislature itself provides that the date of coming into force of the Act would be a date to be notified by the Central Government, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act will have no application. It is plain and evident from the language of the provision. Section 5(1) provides that "where any Central Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent". Sub-section (3) provides that "unless the contrary is expressed, a Central Act or regulation shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement". In simple words it would mean that unless otherwise provided a Central Act would come into operation on the date it receives the Presidential assent and is construed as coming into operation immediately on the date preceding its commencement. Thus, if a Central Act is assented by the President on 23-8-1995 then it would be construed to have come into operation on the midnight between 22-8-1995 and 23-8-1995. Sub-section (3) has to be read as a corollary to sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) provides that the Act would come into operation on the date it receives the

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

assent of the President where a particular day w.e.f. which the Act would come into force is not prescribed whereas sub-section (3) provides the exact time of the day/night when the Act would come into force. It would not apply to cases where the legislature has delegated the power to the executive to bring into force the Act from a date to be notified by publication in the Official Gazette." (emphasis supplied)

27. Provision akin to Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is

contained in Section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Bihar and Orissa General

Clauses Act, 1917. It also states:

" Section 6. Coming into operation of Act:

(1) Where any Bihar and Orissa Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, then it shall come into operation on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor-General is first published in the Official gazette in pursuance of Section 81 of the Government of India Act, 1915.

(a) Where any Bihar Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day ,-

(i) In the case of a Bihar Act made before the commencement of the Constitution, it shall come into operation, if it is an Act of the Legislature, on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor , Governor-General or His majesty, as the case may require, is first published in the official Gazette, and if it is an Act of the Governor of Bihar, on the day on which it is first published as an Act in the Official gazette:

(ii) In the case of a Bihar Act made after the commencement of the Constitution, it shall come into operation on the day on which the assent thereto of the Governor or the President, as the case may require is first published in the Official gazette. (2) Unless the contrary is expressed, a Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement." ( emphasis supplied)

28. Under Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, this

statute applies in the state of Jharkhand as well.

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

29. The interpretation given to Section 5 of the General Clauses Act,

1897 by the Supreme Court in Common Cause (3 supra) equally

applies to Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses

Act, 1917.

30. Thus, unless otherwise provided, a State Act would come into

operation on the date it receives the Governor's assent and is construed

as coming into operation immediately on the date preceding its

commencement.

31. But where the legislature has delegated the power to the

executive/State Government to bring into force the Act from a date to

be notified by publication in the Official Gazette, it will not come into

operation until such a notification as contemplated by Section 1(ii) of

the 2011 Amending Act is issued and published in the Official Gazette.

32. Therefore, since the amendment made in 2011 to Section 2(v) of

the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (deleting the term

'demonstrator' from the definition of the term 'teacher') never came

into operation in the absence of notification issued by the State

Government, it was not open to the respondents to treat the

demonstrators including petitioners as 'non -teaching staff' and retire

them on completion of age of 60 years.

33. Admittedly upto 25.12.2012, the age of superannuation of

teaching staff was only 62 years and only from 26.12.2012, by virtue

of the Jharkhand University (Amendment) Act, 2012, Section 67(a)

was amended enhancing the age of superannuation from 62 to 65

years.

34. So, those among the demonstrators who would attain the age of

62 years as on 25.12.2012, are entitled to salary and allowances till

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

they attain the age of 62 years and the respondents shall pay them the

same within 8 weeks from today.

35. Those among the demonstrators who would not attain the age of

62 years by 26.12.2012 alone would have been entitled to continue

upto 65 years, provided they reach the said age before 15.2.2019. So

the respondents shall pay such demonstrators salary and allowances till

they attain the age of 65 years within 8 weeks from today.

36. This is because of yet another development in 2018/2019 during

the pendency of these Writ Petitions, which is relevant.

37. The State of Jharkhand also passed the Jharkhand State

University (Amendment) Act, 2018 on 13.2.2019 (2019 Amending

Act) and notified it on 15.2.2019 amending the definition of the term

'teacher' in Section 2(v) and substituting it as under:

"Section 2 (v) : "Teacher" includes Principal, University professor, College Professor, Reader/Associate professor/ Lecturer selection grade/ Lecturer Senior Scale and lecturer/ Assistant professor (Stage-I, Stage-II and Stage-III) imparting instruction in Department, College or Institute maintained by the University."

38. This amendment also excluded demonstrators from the

definition of the term "teacher".

39. Section 1(iii) of the 2019 Amendment stated that "It shall come

into force at once."

40. So demonstrators who have to be treated as teaching staff

entitled to retire at the age of 65 years notwithstanding the 2011

Amending Act (which had not been notified), would, by virtue of 2019

Amending Act (which came into force immediately), become non-

teaching staff w.e.f. 15.2.2019.

2025:JHHC:14140-DB

41. So those demonstrators who would complete the age of 60 years

after 15.2.2019 would retire on the date they would complete the age