Jharkhand High Court
Dukhu Ram Kuiry vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 JHA 321
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(S) No. 3790 of 2020
----
1.Dukhu Ram Kuiry, aged about 66 years, son of late Kanchan Kuiry, resident of near Mahato Dukan, New Colony, Hyder Ali Road, PO Kokar, PS Sadar, Kokar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
2.Dhirendra Nath Mahato, aged about 63 years, son of late Jagmohan Mahato, resident of new Colony, Tungri, Tassar Farm Road, PO Chaibasa, PS Muffosil, Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, State of Jharkhand at Raj Bhawan, PO GPO, PS Gonda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
3.Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, PO Doranda and PS Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
4.The Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, PO Chaibasa, PS Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
5.The Registrar, Kolhan University at Chaibasa, PO Chaibasa, PS Chaibasa, Dist. West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ...... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-3 For Resp.University:- Mr. Akashdeep, AC to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv.
----
3/08.02.2021 Heard Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Akashdeep, the learned counsel for the respondent University.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
2
3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of the arrears of salary as per 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision to the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420- 18300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 till 30.05.2005 which has not been paid to the petitioner as the issue is no more res integra and decided by this Court and also affirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court by which the issue regarding two pay scales of Reader have been struck down considering only one post of Reader in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013 affirmed in L.P.A. No.661 of 2019.
4. Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 was appointed as a Lecturer on 28.1.1982 in the P.G.Centre, Chaibasa through Selection Committee, Ranchi University as it was earlier under Ranchi University. After creation of Kolhan University in the year 2009, the services of the petitioner came under the Kolhan University. The petitioner no.1 was promoted as Reader on 28.1.1992 and Associate Professor on 01.1.2006 and the petitioner was retired with effect from 31.3.2020. He was initially appointed in the Department of Mathematics and he has done his PhD on 20.1.1990 but arrear of salary for the intervening period as per enhancement of UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 to 30.5.2005 has not been paid to him and similarly petitioner no.2 was appointed as Lecturer on 20.11.1981 at Bokaro Steel City College by the Selection Committee, Ranchi, and thereafter he was transferred to Tata College, Chaibasa on 22.07.1983 in the Department of Physics. The petitioner was promoted as Reader on 21.11.1991 and Associate Professor w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and at present with effect from 20.10.2016 the petitioner is posted in Kolhan University in P.G.Department of Physics and is due to retire in February, 3 2022. He has done his PhD on 14.7.1995 from IIT, Kharagpur. It is averred in the writ petition that under the career advancement scheme of the UGC which shows that minimum length of service for eligibility to move in the grade of Lecturers, senior scale would be 4 years for those with Ph.D, 5 years with those M.Phil and 6 years for those at the level of Lecturers and for eligibility to move into the grade or Reader/Lecturers- Selection Grade, the minimum length of service of Lecturer in senior selection grade shall be uniformly 5 years. It is evident from the order dated 06.09.2019 after the order passed in LPA No.22/2018, the State Government came out with a notification directing all the Universities to state that total number of Readers of the entire State in various Universities who were granted promotion under 'Time bound promotion scheme/ Merit promotion scheme', meaning thereby after the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondent/State is taking stand for paying the arrears to all the Readers in one pay scale i.e. Rs.12,000-420- 18,300/- in 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision committee. It is mentioned that the petitioners were otherwise eligible for being placed at the Lecturer Selection Grade in the scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- at the time of promotion to the post of Reader under the scheme, but he has been placed in the Scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He further submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in "Prashant Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013 and "Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and Othrs" in W.P.(S) No.3690 of 2018. He submits that the matter may kindly be disposed of with a direction to the respondent State to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in cases of "Prashant Kumar Mishra & Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others" and "Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and Others". 4
5. The State counsel submits that the Government came out with a notification directing all the Universities to state that the total number of Readers in the entire State in various Universities who were granted promotion under time bound promotion scheme meaning thereby after the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid LPAs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents are bound to act in terms of letter dated 11.09.2020 by which the arrears of pay scales of Reader in 5th , 6 th and 7th pay revision has been given to the writ petitioners of W.P(S) No. 4162/2013, L.P.A. No. 22/2018 and L.P.A. No. 661/2019 and cannot adopt discriminatory attitude in respect of the present petitioner by way of pick and choose method.
7. Mr. Akashdeep, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University submits that it is in the domain of the State to consider the case of the petitioners. He further submits that if any rectification will be done by the State Government, the University shall comply the same.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the identical matters in the case of "Prashant Kumar Mishra" and "Geeta" (supra) the matter has been set at rest which was affirmed in L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661/2019. It is stated that on the basis of the above mentioned judgments, the Court may dispose of the instant case accordingly.
9. In view of the above admitted position, the respondent State is directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in "Prashant Kumar Mishra" and "Geeta" (supra) and also L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661 of 2019 and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date 5 of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
10. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner the same shall be communicated to the University within a period of four weeks so that the benefit of the same may be accrued to the petitioners at the earliest.
11. With the above observations and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
12. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/