Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Mistry vs Ranchi University Through Registrar ... on 12 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(3)JCR385(JHR)], 2006 LAB IC (NOC) 422 (JHA), 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 23, (2006) 4 JLJR 245, (2006) 3 JCR 385 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to refix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3700-6700/-, i.e. the pay scale of a Reader, since the petitioner was promoted to the post of a Reader by issue of Annexure-1, i.e. the notification dated 05/08/1995, by the Ranchi University and in the said notification the name of the Petitioner stands in Sl. No. 21, wherein he was given promotion to the post of a Reader w.e.f. 01/02/1985.
Admittedly the petitioner has retired from the service as Lecturer of Ranchi University on 31/01/1994 and this notification promoting him to the post of a Reader was issued only after his retirement, i.e. on 5th August 1995.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was given promotion to the post of a Reader by issue of Annexure-1 w.e.f. 01/02/1985 but still his pension has not be refixed in the scale of Reader. Further claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the arrears of pay in the scale of Reader from 01/02/1985, i.e. the date with effect from he was given promotion till the date of his retirement.
3. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner, has submitted that subsequently in the year 1995 the petitioner was promoted to the post of University Professor but he has confining his claim and relief only for the post of Reader, which was given to him vide Anexure-1 to the writ application.
4. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University has already refixed the scale of pay of the petitioner on the post of Reader but so far as the monetary benefit is concerned, it is only after the State Government releases the fund the same can be paid to the petitioner.
5. Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, submitted that so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to the arrears of pay of the post of Reader prior to 15/11/2000, i.e. bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand is concerned, the same has to be paid by the State of Bihar and not by the State of Jharkhand. However, he submitted that since the petitioner has already been given promotion to the post of Reader by the Ranchi University and, therefore, if the University makes any request to the State of Jharkhand for release of fund, for the payment of pensionery benefit to the petitioner in the scale of Reader, the same shall be made available to the University.
6. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar contested the stands of the State of Jharkhand and submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bharti Prasad Thakur v. Sidhu Kanhu University reported in 2002 (1) JLJR 491 it is the Stale of Jharkhand who has to pay the entire arrears of pay as well as the pensionary benefit to the petitioner as has been held by this Court in the aforesaid case since both the college and university fall within the territory of the State of Jharkhand and the petitioner was residing in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioner, who retired as a Professor of Sidhu Kanhu University must get pension from the State of Jharkhand and, accordingly the State of Jharkhand was directed to provide sufficient fund to Sidhu Kanhu University for payment of pension to the petitioner. Mr. Roy submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner, who is residing in the State of Jharkhand, was a Lecturer in a college situated in the State of Jharkhand and it was within Ranchi University and, therefore, the petitioner shall be paid his claim by the State of Jharkhand and not. by the State of Bihar.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contentions of the parties and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of "Bharti Prasad Thakur" (Supra), I hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension in the scale of Reader from the date of his retirement, i.e. 31/01/1994 and prior to that from 01/02/1985 till the dale of his retirement he is entitled to the arrears of salary in the scale of Reader. Since the residence of the petitioner, the college where the petitioner was working and from which he retired from service and the University are situated within the territory of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in Bharti Prasad Thakur's ease (Supra), the State of Jharkhand is liable to pay the arrears of salary as well as the pensionary benefit to the petitioner as indicated above.
8. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the Ranchi University is directed to make a request to the State of Jharkhand for release of the fund for payment of the arrears of salary and pensionary benefit to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. The State of Jharkhand shall release the adequate fund to the University for payment of the aforesaid dues to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter and then the University without any delay within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the fund, shall make payment to the petitioner.
9. With the above observations and directions, this application is allowed.