Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:25435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1148 of 2019
.........
Sunil Kumar Sinha, Aged 61 years, Son of Late Vijay Bhushan Prasad, Resident of-A/9, Saket Vihar, Harmu, P.O.-Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002. ..... Petitioner Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, Jharkhand. Doranda, District
3. Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi, P.Ο. Ranchi University, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001.
5. Ranchi University, Ranchi, through its Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi through its Registrar.
..... Respondents .........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN .......
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.Allam, Sr. Adv M/s. Sushmita Kumari, Faisal Allam, Asfia Sultana, Advocates For the Resp.-State : Mr. J.F.Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijeet Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Resp.-R.U. : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate .........
C.A.V. ON 25/06/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 25 /08/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs;
(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents specially 1 2025:JHHC:25435 respondent no. 3 to pay benefits of 6th pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006 which was allowed to the other similarly situated employees of the Ranchi University as petitioner is working against the of vacant post Assistant and he has already been allowed the benefits of 4th and 5th pay revision.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears as well as current salary under the 6th Pay Revision from 01.01.2006 till the date of implementation of 7th pay revision and further pay the benefits of 7th pay revision along with other similarly situated employees of the Ranchi University as and when enforced by the State Government.
(c) For issuance writ or a of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an order that petitioner has been confirmed against the vacant sanctioned post of Assistant of Ranchi University, Ranchi and on the basis of Judgment delivered in the case of Ratni Oraon, the respondents, specially the respondent nos. 2 and 3, cannot shirk their liability from paying benefits of 6th and 7th pay revision after working for more than 23 years.
AND / OR
(d) For issuance of any other appropriate writ or direction(s) or order (s) as Your Honour may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. [Prayer added pursuant to order dated 30.08.2023 passed in I.A. No. 7937 of 2023.]
(e) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the letter no. passed by 62, dated 19.01.2023, 2 2025:JHHC:25435 the Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand the benefits whereby of 6th Pay Revision has not been allowed. Moreover, the benefits of 5th pay Revision already made in the year 2009 has also been set aside. So, the instant document dated 19.01.2023, as contained in Letter No. 62, may be quashed and set aside with costs.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made are that an advertisement was published by Ranchi University (hereinafter to be referred as University) for the post of computer operator among others. The petitioner applied and was selected by order of learned Vice Chancellor (in short VC) vide memo no. 1804 dated 23.12.1996.
Thereafter, the benefit of the 4th and 5th pay revision was granted to the petitioner. Further, the University vide its letter dated 29.04.2014 notified that the petitioner shall get the benefit of 6th pay revision; however, the State Government gave a note against the petitioner's name "pending for want of sanction letter, post and pay not prescribed....... "
Thereafter, when no benefit of 6th pay, revision was granted to the petitioner though similarly situated persons were granted the benefit even after working for 23 years; the VC designated the petitioner against the post of Assistant with effect from 23.12.2004. The petitioner retired in 2022 and the benefit of 5th pay revision was also cancelled on 19.01.2023. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the post was advertised in 1996 with presumed sanction, though designated as a Computer 3 2025:JHHC:25435 Operator, the petitioner performed the duties of an Assistant and was academically overqualified. The State administrative practice treats posts like Typist, Computer Operator, and Clerk as part of the common "Assistant"
cadre.
He further submitted that from 01.01.1996, pay scales under the 4th and 5th Pay Commissions were identical for Assistants and Computer Operators, confirming functional parity. It has further been submitted that the VC has authority under Section 10 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter as Act) to redesignate the petitioner to the post of "Assistant". He contended that the petitioner received 4th and 5th Pay Scale benefits for decades without State objection and withdrawal of these benefits post-retirement is arbitrary.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was appointed under a Plan Head post created by the UGC in 1976 and advertised in 1996. However, after the Plan ended, the post lapsed, and the petitioner continued on, an unsanctioned post without formal approval.
He further submitted that the University neither sought State Government's approval to convert the post to Non-Plan Head; nor informed that the appointment was under the Plan Head, resulting in the erroneous grant of 5th Pay Revision and rejection during the 6th Pay Revision review for lack of regularization.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the re- designation of the petitioner as Assistant by the Vice Chancellor (Order dated 14.02.2017 w.e.f. 23.12.2004) was beyond jurisdiction and violative of Section 35 of the Act, which bars creation of new posts without State approval.
42025:JHHC:25435 He lastly submitted that the University alone is responsible for appointing and paying the petitioner on an unsanctioned post; the State cannot be held liable for such benefits.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the main contention of the State respondents is that the VC had no authority to redesignate the petitioner to the post of "Assistant" as it is beyond his jurisdiction based on section 35 of Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 and the petitioner was working on an unsanctioned post; as such, he cannot be granted the benefit of pay revision.
7. The contention of respondents that VC had no power to redesignate non-teaching staff without approval of government is not acceptable to this Court. The main thrust of their argument is based on Section 35 of the Act and for that it would be profitable here to refer to Section 35 of the Act:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no University or any College affiliated to such a University except such College-
(a) As is established, maintained or governed by the State Government; or
(b) As is established by religious or linguistic minority;
(i) After the commencement of this Act no teaching or non-
teaching post involving financial liabilities shall be created without the prior approval of the State Government;
(ii) Shall either increase the pay or allowance attached to any post, or sanction any new allowance; Provided that the State Government may, by an order, revise the pay-scale attached to such post or sanction any new allowance;
(iii) Shall sanction any special pay or allowance or other remuneration of any kind including ex-gratia payment or any other benefit having financial implication to any person holding a teaching or non-teaching post;
(iv) Shall incur expenditure of any kind on any development 5 2025:JHHC:25435 scheme without the prior approval of the State Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no College other than one mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1), shall, after the commencement of this Act, appoint any person on any post without the prior approval of the State Government:
Provided that the approval of the State Government shall not be necessary for filling up a sanctioned post of a teacher for a period not exceeding six months, by candidate possessing the prescribed qualification."
From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would appear that except Colleges/Universities which have been established and/or are maintained or governed by the State Government or Colleges/Universities which have been established by the religious or linguistic minority, other affiliated Colleges and the Universities are forbidden from creating teaching or non-teaching post, involving financial liabilities and making any appointment without the prior approval of the State Government.
8. Temporary appointment for period not exceeding six months can be made without the prior approval of the State Government against a teaching post provided that post is sanctioned and the candidate possess the prescribed qualifications.
9. The restraint envisaged by the section is thus twofold. Firstly, neither post can be created nor appointment can be made without the prior approval of the State Government. Secondly, if a sanctioned post of teacher is available and is vacant; appointment can be made without the prior approval of the State Government but for a period not acceding six months.
10. If the aforesaid provisions are literally construed it would virtually mean that no college can be established except by the State Government or linguistic/religious minority. As per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, a 6 2025:JHHC:25435 College can be affiliated only with the approval of the State Government and before granting such approval, the State Government has to consider, inter alia, "the viability of the academic standard and all other conditions which are likely to have observe effect on the interests of students admitted to such a College." Section 21, therefore, contemplates the existence of a full-fledged institution with adequate provision.
11. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that it would be a tautology to say that an educational institution cannot exist without students. If the existence of students is a must, so is the existence of teachers, inasmuch as, the students cannot pursue their studies in the institutions without teachers. Further, no office can run without non-
teaching staffs. If the existence of adequate infrastructure, inclusive of the provisions for teachers and non-teaching staff, is a condition precedent for grant of approval in the matter of affiliation and without affiliation the College cannot claim the privileges of University under the provisions of the Act or the statutes framed thereunder, it is obvious that literal interpretation and a steadfast insistence on prior approval of the State Government in the matter of creation of posts and appointment may lead to any absurd situation.
12. In the above background, it is profitable to refer Section 10 (6) of the Act which empowers the VC to make appointment to the post within sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of ministerial staff and other servants of University. The relevant provision is quoted herein below:
"10. The Vice-Chancellor - (6) The Vice-Chancellor shall subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances have power to make appointment to posts 7 2025:JHHC:25435 within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of the ministerial staff and other servants of the University not being teachers and officers of the University and have control and full disciplinary powers over such stall and servants."
13. On a conjoint reading of Section 35 and Section 10 of the Act; constructing them harmoniously and interpreting them purposively, this Court holds that the VC had the authority to redesignate the Petitioner to the post of "Assistant".
14. Now coming to the other limb of the argument that the petitioner was working on an unsanctioned post has no legs to stand if the VC had authority to redesignate the petitioner to the post of "Assistant". Further, the petitioner was having Masters Degree in Computer Science in addition to his Bachelors Degree. He was appointed to the post of Computer Operator but the nature of work was that of assistant as it was mandatory for every assistant after 1995 to have knowledge of typing and computers and the petitioner was working as assistant and was also qualified for the post.
15. Even otherwise, it is not denied that the petitioner was continuously working for more than 23 years before his retirement. He was paid salary, allowance etc. regularly and at no point of time any objection was raised by the respondent to the appointment of petitioner. It further appears that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised on the recommendation of 5th pay revision and he was paid increment also. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied that he was working on unsanctioned post.
16. Having regard to the above discussions, impugned letter no. 62 dated 19.01.2023; whereby the benefits of 6th 8 2025:JHHC:25435 pay revision was not allowed and benefits of 5th pay revision was also cancelled; is hereby, quashed and set aside. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay the benefit of 6th pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006 till the date of implementation of 7th pay revision. Thereafter, the benefit of 7th pay shall also be paid.
It is made clear that all consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
17. Accordingly, the present writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A. if any is also disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ A.F.R 9