Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ravi Shankar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1185 of 2019
1.Dr. Ravi Shankar
2.Dr. Vibesh Kumar Choubey
3.Sunita Kumari
4.Dharmendra Kumar Singh
5.Dr. Kumar Birendra Singh
6.Dr. Rabindra Kumar Pathak
7.Dr. Suresh Sahu
8.Dr. Radha Krishna Jha
9.Dr. Sailesh Kumar Mishra
10.Dr. Manju Singh
11.Dr. Md. Khurshid Alam
12.Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
13.Dr. Bimal Kumar Singh
14.Richa Singh
15.Dr. Mritunjay Kumar ............Petitioners
Vrs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Shri Shailesh Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, School
Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi
3.Shri Shushant Gaurav, Director, Higher Education, School
Education and Literacy Dept., Ranchi
4.Shri Jayant Shekhar, Registrar, Nilambar Pitambar University, Palamau
5.Shri Proff. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Vice Chancellor, Nilambar
Pitambar University, Palamau .......... Opposite Parties
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioners : M/s Manoj Tandon, Sneha Kumari, Neha Bhardwaj
Akanksha Priya, Advocate
For the O.P.-State : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I
For the O.P No.4 & 5 : M/s Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Shivam Singh, Advocate
10/14.10.2022 Whether the opposite parties of the State are in deliberate and
willful disobedience of the order under offence is the issue to be answered.
2. The writ petitioners were Ph.D. holders working under the Ranchi University and the Nilambar Pitambar University. The contempt petitioners are now only of Nilambar Pitambar University. By virtue of the State's Resolution dated 20.11.2010 bearing no. 1188 the U.G.C. regulations dated 30.06.2010 were adopted on certain terms and conditions and exceptions. On stoppage of the advance 5 increments to such Ph.D. holders, petitioners being aggrieved, approached the Writ Court. The case was decided on the basis of pleadings and submissions of the parties on the ground of non- compliance of principles of natural justice and that once the U.G.C. scheme was adopted, all terms and conditions of the U.G.C. regulations were to be followed in composite form and the State was bound to accept the whole U.G.C. regulations including the provisions relating to Ph.D./ M.Phil 2 increments. The learned Writ Court also held that there could not arise any question of recovery of the increment already paid relying upon certain decisions of this Court and the Apex Court such as in the case of State of Punjab and others Vrs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vrs. State of Uttarakhand & others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417. The impugned orders were set aside. The payment of the advance increments earlier being made to the writ petitioner had not been revoked but only stayed by the impugned orders.
3. Petitioners approached this Court alleging non-compliance of the order of the Writ Court, which according to them revived the status quo ante where under such advance Ph.D increments were being paid to them. The opposite parties of the State took time to show compliance and have come out with a resolution no. 305 dated 09.03.2022. The operative para 6 & 7 whereof is extracted hereunder:
06. यू०जी०सी० के पत्रांक-F-3-1/2009, दिनरांक-28.06.2010 के schedule for clause 6.8.0 की कां डिकर 9.0 एवां यू.जी.सी. द्वररर जररी दकये गये पडलिक नोटिस सांख्यर-28-9/2018 (PS/MISC.), दिनरांक 07.12.2018 में डनडित शतों के आिोक में डनम्नवत् स्वीकृ डत प्रिरन की जरती िै:-
i. ररज्य में करययरत डवश्वडवद्यरिय/अांगीभूत मिरडवद्यरियों (घरिरनुिरडनत अल्पसांख्यक मिरडवद्यरियो सडित) के व्यरख्यरतर/सिरयक प्ररध्यरपक, डजन्िोंने डनयुडि के पूवय यू०जी०सी० के पत्रांक-F-3-1/2009, दिनरांक-28.06.2010 के schedule for clause 6.8.0 की कां डिकर 9.0 में डवडित शतों को (बरि में एम0एच0 आर0िी0 कर पडलिक नोटिस सांख्यर-28-9/2018 (PS/MISC.), दिनरांक-07.12.2018 द्वररर जररी स्पष्टीकरण के आिोक में) पूरर करते हुए Ph.D./ M.Phil की उपरडि प्ररप्त की िै, उन्िें डनयुडि की डतडि से क्रमशः 5 एवां 2 Non compoundable advance increment एवां डनयुडि के उपररांत Ph.D./M.Phil की उपरडि प्ररप्त की िो तो उन्िें 01-09-2008 अिवर उनके द्वररर Ph.D./M.Phil की उपरडि प्ररप्त करने की डतडि, जो बरि में िो, की डतडि से क्रमश: 3 एवां 1 Non compoundable advance increment वैचरटरक रूप से िेय िोगर।
ii. व्यरख्यरतर/सिरयक प्ररध्यरपकों को वेतन वृडि कर वरस्तडवक डवतीय िरभ सांकल्प डनगयत िोने की डतडि से िेय िोगर।
iii. डजन व्यरख्यरतरओं द्वररर पराँचवें यू०जी०सी० वेतनमरन के अिीन 01.01.2006 के पूवय entry level पर Ph.D./M.Phil वेतन वृडि कर िरभ पूवय की डवभरगीय अडिसूचनर- 1399, दिनरांक 30.11.2004 के आिरर पर िे डियर गयर िै उन्िें इस अडिसूचनर के आिरर पर कोई िरभ िेय निीं िोगर।
07. प्रस्तरव पर दिनरांक 24.02.2022 को आहूत मांडत्पटरषि् की बैठक के मि सांख्यर-26 में स्वीकृ डत प्ररप्त िै।
4. Petitioners are aggrieved as the Writ Court's order have not been complied in letter and spirit. The resolution of 09.03.2022 though affirms payment of advance Ph.D increments to the Ph.D holders, whether having obtained the Ph.D degree before entering into service or after entering into service, but has made it prospective from the date of the notification with notional benefits from 01.09.2008. According to learned counsel for the 3 petitioners, this does not amount to compliance of the order of the Writ Court in letter and spirit rather it amounts to deliberate violation of the Writ Court's order when the judgment has attained finality and there are no appeals pending or decided against it.
5. On the part of the State, learned Additional Advocate General-I Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra argues that the resolution of 21.11.2010 as was also pointed out to the Writ Court, actually never adopted the guidelines regarding grant of advance Ph.D increment but some of the Universities had extended the benefits to some of its teacher on their own which was stayed by the department. This led to the challenge before the Writ Court. The learned Writ Court quashed the stoppage of payment of Ph.D increments but did not issue any specific direction to pay it from any cutoff date or the manner in which it is to be paid. The State, however in deference to the judgment of the learned Writ Court deliberated over the matter and in view of the huge financial implication involved issued the resolution bearing no. 305 dated 09.03.2022 according the benefits of advance Ph.D increments to the Ph.D holders / teachers but with notional benefits from 01.09.2008 with actual monetary benefits flowing prospectively from the date of resolution. The resolution in effect intends to implement the direction of the Writ Court rather than flouting it. In view of the resolution dated 09.03.2022, whether the contention of the petitioner that actual monetary benefits are to be paid from 01.09.2008 in terms of the resolution dated 20.11.2010, is a novel question, which was not the subject matter of the writ petition and may not be decided in the contempt jurisdiction as it involves interpretation of the provisions of the U.G.C. regulations and its adoption by the State Government in 2010 and in 2022. Even otherwise, since the petitioners would also get the notional benefits which accumulates to their advantage under the annual pay fixation, the allegation of deliberate and willful disobedience of the Writ Court's order does not arise. Therefore, the opposite parties may be discharged of the contempt proceedings.
6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the judgment under offence and the respective affidavits of the petitioners and the show cause filed by the opposite parties of the State. What was under challenge before the Writ Court was stoppage of payment of advance Ph.D increments to the writ petitioner, some of whom got this benefit by virtue of resolution dated 20.11.2010 as teachers of Ranchi University and Nilambar Pitambar 4 University amongst few more Universities in the State. The issuance of the resolution dated 09.03.2022 may be a modification of the resolution dated 20.11.2010; it may also be a clarification of the resolution dated 20.11.2010 as it also takes into note the clarification on the conditions required to be fulfilled by the Ph.D degree holders to avail the advance Ph.D increments as resolved by the U.G.C through its letter dated 07.12.2018. By issuance of this resolution the benefits of advance Ph.D increments on which the Writ Court adjudicated, have not been taken away but the benefits accrues with notional effect from 01.09.2008 and grants monetary benefits prospectively. The resolution dated 09.03.2022 on the face of it, therefore, cannot be said to be a deliberate attempt to over reach the judgment of the learned Writ Court. The contentious legal issues which arise out of issuance of the resolution dated 09.03.2022 are something which need not be gone into in the contempt jurisdiction as they involve interpretation of the resolution of the State Government dated 20.11.2010 and the instant resolution dated 09.03.2022 issued in furtherance of the U.G.C regulation.
7. It is well settled by now as has also been held in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633 that State is free to adopt the U.G.C scheme or not but, however, once the U.G.C. scheme is adopted, all the terms and conditions of the U.G.C. regulations have to be followed in composite form. Therefore, the issue whether the resolution dated 09.03.2022 has been issued within the scope of jurisdiction of the State Government to implement the U.G.C. scheme or not are such issues, which can be agitated and adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings only, not in the contempt jurisdiction. As such, this Court is of the view that the opposite parties of the State have not committed any deliberate and willful disobedience of the Writ Court's order. The contempt petition is accordingly dropped. Liberty is available to the petitioner to raise their grievance in relation to the resolution dated 09.03.2022 in an appropriate proceeding.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty