Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Samira Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2018
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 186 of 2018
1. Dr. Samira Sinha
2. Dr. Kumar Pushkar Singh
3. Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh
4. Dr. Bharti Dwivedi
5. Dr. Rohit Srivastava
6. Jagdish Lohra
7. Dr. Suchi Santosh Barwar
8. Dr. Geetanjali Singh
9. Dr. Arapna Sinha
10. Smrity Praba
11. Dr. Vidyan Kumari
12. Dr. Agha Md. Zafar Hussnain
13. Dr. Kanjiv Lochan
14. Dr. Rashmi Mishra
15. Dr. Ratnesh Vishvaksen
16. Dr. Abha Jha ... .... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Abu Imran, Director, Higher and Technical Education, State of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi
3. Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Main Road,
Kotwali, Ranchi .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
-----
For Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
For Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate General Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, GP-VI For University Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, AC to A.K. Mehta, Advocate
------
09/ 07.12.2018 This contempt application is arising out of W.P.(S) No.3462 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2017 wherein, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, taking into consideration that similarly situated persons have already been extended the benefits of AGP, increments of Ph.D/M.Phil and arrears of 6th Pay Commission. Needless to say that if the petitioners are found entitled for the benefits of AGP, increments of Ph.D/M.Phil and arrears of 6th Pay Commission, the same may be 2 extended to them, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In compliance of the said order, a reasoned order dated 28.08.2018 has been passed by the opposite party-State. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State submits that as far as arrears of salary is concerned, the funds have been allotted to the University and University has disbursed the same on 03.11.2018 itself.
Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party-University on the direction of this Court enquired the matter as affidavit regarding payment has not been filed on behalf of the University and made a statement in open Court that already the amount has been disbursed on 03.11.2018.
In view of the submissions, dispute regarding payment of arrears of 6th Pay Commission has been resolved. Regarding other benefits i.e. AGP and increments of Ph.D. /M.Phil, the same is being disputed by the opposite party-State as well as University. It is specific stand of the opposite party-State that unless the Statutes are framed, they are unable to disburse any amount to the University. As far as earlier payment made by the other Universities is concerned, it is the stand of the opposite parties that the amounts were paid illegally. However, it is an admitted fact that though the Statutes draft have been framed but the same have not been approved by the Government. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the University that Statutes, which is drafted and sent for approval shall be common for all the Universities. Regarding the entitlement of the petitioner, which is disputed by the opposite party-State, this Court under Contempt jurisdiction cannot decide the entitlement of the petitioners as to whether they are entitled or not. It is always open for the petitioners to challenge the reasoned order, if they are aggrieved with the same. As regarding AGP, it is specific stand of the respondent-State that benefits cannot be extended in absence of any statutes. Though the Statutes have already been framed, but the same has not been approved. Therefore, after approval, opposite party-State shall extend the benefits to the petitioners as per the entitlement, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Since the arrears of 6th Pay Commission have been disbursed and reasoned order have been passed and part compliance has been made, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in contempt application. No contempt is made out and hence, it is dropped.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) punit/