[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Anita Shukla @ Anita Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:11180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2538 of 2018
.........
Dr. Anita Shukla @ Anita Tiwary, Aged-53 years, wife of
Arun Kumar Shukla, Resident of-3/E,Kailash
Apartment, South Office Para, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002. ..... Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical
Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Director, Department Technical Education, of
Higher and Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Jharkhand. District Ranchi.
4. Ranchi University, Ranchi, through its Registrar,
Ranchi University, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali,
District Ranchi.
5. Vice Chancellor, Ranchi Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.
District Ranchi. University, Kotwali,
6. Secretary, College, Governing Body, P.O. and P.S.
District Ranchi, Jharkhand. Nirmala Doranda,
7. Principal, Nirmala College, P.O. and P.S.
Jharkhand. Doranda, District Ranchi.
..... Respondent(s)
.........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
.......
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.Allam, Sr. Advocate
For the Resp.-R.U : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. Nirmala: Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
College Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
.........
27/16.04.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, for
the enforcement of her service benefits, including unpaid post-
retirement dues, arrears of salary under the 6th Central Pay
Revision, and differential salary under the 7th Central Pay
Revision. The petitioner asserts that she is entitled to these
2026:JHHC:11180
benefits with interest.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer at Nirmala
College, Ranchi, on 28.07.2005. The appointment was subject to
the approval of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC),
which was granted on 06.07.2009. The petitioner voluntarily
resigned from service on 08.04.2017 on medical grounds, and her
resignation was accepted by the Governing Body of Nirmala
College on 11.04.2017.
4. The contentions of the parties, as recorded during the
proceedings, are summarized as follows:
Contentions of the Petitioner:
5. The petitioner claims that she was not paid complete post-
retirement benefits. She specifically alleges that the benefits of
pay revision have not been paid by the College from the date these
have been enforced by the State Government for its employees.
She claims that she is entitled to receive 6th Pay Revision arrears
of salary from 01.01.2006 instead of July, 2013. The case of this
Petitioner is that if the College has paid the 6th Pay Revision
benefits from July, 2013 for a post without finance, it should also
be directed to pay the benefits from 01.01.2006, when the 6th Pay
Revision Commission recommendations became applicable. The
petitioner's counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in State
of Jharkhand and others vs Arbind Kumar Lal & others, (2024)
SCC Online JHAR 2224, to support the claim for parity in
benefits. It was also argued that the action of the State
2026:JHHC:11180
Government and the College, which distinguishes between
employees based on the nature of their sanctioned post (with or
without finance), is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 16,
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Contentions of the Respondent - Nirmala College
(Respondents No. 6 & 7):
7. It has been submitted that all post-retirement benefits have
already been paid to the petitioner following her voluntary
resignation. No leave encashment is payable as the petitioner was
not attending the College for over a year prior to her resignation.
She was on Extra Ordinary Leave (Leave Without Pay) from
February 2016 until her resignation. The college has disputed the
claim for 6th Pay Revision arrears from 01.01.2006 to June 2013.
It relies on a letter dated 28.07.2014 from the Vice-Chancellor of
Ranchi University, which states that arrears of the 6th Pay
Revision were sanctioned only for lecturers working on posts with
finance, for the period April, 2010 to June, 2013. The College
asserts it has only received arrears for the 6th revised pay scale for
24 teachers working on sanctioned posts with finance, and that
too, only from April 2010 to 2013. The State Government has not
provided any financial support for the period from 01.01.2006 for
any staff of the College. It is further stated that the college has
extended the 6th Pay Revision benefits from July, 2013 to the
petitioner from its own resources, as she was on a post without
finance. However, the College cannot generate revenue to pay for
2026:JHHC:11180
past arrears for which it received no reimbursement from the
Government. It is also contended that pay revision is not
applicable to private sector employees.
Contentions of the Respondent - Ranchi University
(Respondents No. 4 & 5):
8. The respondent University has asserted that the petitioner
was appointed as a lecturer in the Department of History against
the 4th sanctioned post, which was without finance. It is submitted
that since the petitioner was appointed on post without finance,
the University and the State are under no legal or statutory
obligation to pay her salary or any retiral benefits. The University
only reimburses the salary and benefits for lecturers/professors
appointed against sanctioned posts with finance. Further, it has
been contended that grant of pay revision benefits is a matter of
policy and Courts should ordinarily refrain from issuing directions
in policy matters which are executive functions.
9. During the course of arguments, the factual controversy was
narrowed down to the petitioner's claim for 6th Pay Revision
benefits for the period from 01.01.2006 to June 2013 and 7th pay
revision benefits.
10. Heard Ld. Counsel for the respective parties and perused
the records. The record reveals that the State Government and the
University have only provided arrears under the 6th Pay Revision
for the period from April, 2010 to June, 2013. There is no material
on record to suggest that the benefit of the 6th Pay Revision was
2026:JHHC:11180
implemented or paid from 01.01.2006 for any employee, let alone
the petitioner.
11. It is further observed from the records that Nirmala College
is a minority deficit grant-aided college. The recommendations of
the Central Pay Revision Commission are binding for all
government employees. The State Government and the University
have extended these benefits to a limited number of teaching and
non-teaching staff of private aided minority colleges in the State
from July, 2013 and has given arrears from April, 2010 only.
12. The Petitioner filed her rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit and
has submitted that when the College has already paid the 6th Pay
Scale from June 2013 even for an unaided post, it should also be
directed to pay the benefit from 01.01.2006 when the 6th Pay
Revision Commission's recommendation became applicable. In the
course of arguments specific query was raised regarding benefits
of the 7th pay revision commission and it has been argued by all
parties that it was not implemented in the College prior to the
date of resignation by this Petitioner.
13. The factual controversy narrows down to the claim for 6th
and 7th Pay Revision benefits for the period 01.01.2006 till June
2013 and 01.01.2016 till her resignation from service. The record
reveals that University and State Government has given arrears
under the 6th Pay Revision from April 2010 till June 2013. There
is no material on record to prove that the benefit was given from
01.01.2006. It is also manifest from the records that the
2026:JHHC:11180
Respondent - Nirmala College is a private minority deficit grant
aided College. The recommendations of the Central Pay Revision
Commission are implemented only for all Government employees.
The State Government and the University have provided these
benefits to limited teaching and non-teaching staff of the College
by way of reimbursement of salary and other benefits.
14. Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the Petitioner has relied upon
the decision in State of Jharkhand and others vs Arbind
Kumar Lal & Others 2024 SCC Online Jhar 2224. It has been
contended that the State Government has created two classes by
sanctioning posts with finance and posts without finance. It
should consider whether such distinction has resulted in two
separate classes with different salary structures for substantially
same work.
15. However, even without entering merits of the disputes, the
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the State Government
should consider the case of the Petitioner and also provide all
arrears under the 6th Pay Revision and 7th Pay Revision. These
pay revision benefits should be extended to the Petitioner from the
date it has become applicable for all Government employees. The
Petitioner's counsel does not dispute that the State Government
has not given benefits of 6th pay revision from 01.01.2006 in
relation to any staff working in the College and even though the
benefits were implemented only in July, 2013 the arrears have
been restricted to April 2010 till June, 2013.
2026:JHHC:11180
16. The submission on behalf of the College is that as soon as
the State Government implemented the 6th Pay Revision scale of
pay in the month of July, 2013, it has from its own resources,
already paid the same benefits to the Petitioner in this case who
was working on a post without finance. However, the College
cannot generate additional revenue for payment of arrears for any
past period. It is also emphatically argued that there is no legal
scope or justification for burdening the College with arrears from
01.01.2006 when even the State Government has implemented
the benefits from April, 2010 only.
17. In these facts and circumstances, the Petitioner can only
claim benefits under the 6th Pay Revision from 01.01.2006 if such
a decision is taken by the State Government as it has not
implemented the benefits from this date and has restricted
arrears only from April, 2010 onwards, for only those teaching
staff who are appointed on posts with finance (aided posts).
18. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
since the State Government has already taken a policy decision to
implement 6th Pay Revision benefits from April, 2010 and not from
1st January 2006 as claimed by petitioner, she would be given
liberty to submit a representation through her College for a
decision regarding grant of the benefits at par with all other
employees of the State Government. This contention of the
Petitioner is accepted.
19. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to submit a detailed
2026:JHHC:11180
representation to the Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical
Education and Skill Development (Respondent no. 2) through the
Principal, Nirmala College, and Vice Chancellor, Ranchi
University. The Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and
decide such representation within a period of 16 weeks. It is
needless to mention that if any decision is taken to grant benefits
of 6th Pay Revision from 01.01.2006, and 7th Pay Revision from
01.01.2016, the arrears of salary of this Petitioner will be released
within 12 weeks from the date of such decision.
20. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.
Pending I.A., if any, are closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:16/04/2026
Amardeep/
Uploaded on
20.04.2026
