Jharkhand High Court
Smt Archana Sinha vs Human Resource Development on 19 November, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4270 of 2013
with
W. P. (S) No. 4280 of 2013
with
W. P. (S) No. 4291 of 2013
with
W. P. (S) No. 4335 of 2013
Shambhu Sharan Giri..... Petitioner (W. P. (S) No. 4270 of 2013)
Smt. Archana Sinha.........Petitioner (W. P. (S) No. 4280 of 2013)
Dr. Ashok Kumar .........Petitioner (W. P. (S) No. 4291 of 2013)
Sandhya Bose .........Petitioner (W. P. (S) No. 4335 of 2013)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director, Higher Education, Ranchi.
4. Vice Chancellor,
Vinoba Bhave Unviersity, Hazaribagh.
5. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University,
Hazaribagh.... ......Respondents (In all cases)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Adv. (In all cases)
For the Respondents : J. C. to G. P. V., J. C. to G. P. I
3/19.11.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner, Shambhu Sharan Giri has reportedly superannuated on 31st October, 2011 while working as a Reader on being promoted as such under Time Bound Promotion Scheme. He was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of History in R.S. More College Gobindpur on 3rd January, 1977. Petitioners in the other three writ petitions are working as Readers.
Petitioner, Archana Sinha was appointed as a Lecturer in Philosophy in the same college and she joined on 3rd January, 1977.
Petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar is working on the post of Reader in the Department of History in the same college where he was appointed as a Lecturer and joined on 5th December, 1981. Petitioner, Dr. Ashok Kumar is stated to have obtained Ph.D degree in June, 2012.
Petitioner, Sandhya Bose is working on the post of Reader in S.S.L.N. T. Mahila College, Dhanbad where she was transferred on 1st May, 1990 from Mahila College, Chaibasa where she was appointed on 23rd January, 1982.
2.The common grievance of all these petitioners is that they have not been given yearly increment from January 2006 on account of the fact that they were not holding Ph.D qualification. They also have grievance relating to their claim for being designated as Associate Professor as per U.G.C. Guidelines. They have also sought correct fixation of pay taking into account the annual increment which have till date been withheld. Petitioner, Shambhu Sharan Giri also has a claim for admissible post retiral dues upon grant of annual increment, as aforesaid, and correct fixation of pay scale. These petitioners have relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of V.N.Jha @ Viveka Nand Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 3632 of 2011 dated 4th July, 2013, as per which under the U.G.C scheme annual increment cannot be withheld, in the background facts, when the petitioners were already promoted as Reader much earlier. It is submitted that the respondents should also follow the said ratio in the petitioners' case which has not been done.
The RespondentUniversity have filed their counter affidavit in all these cases. According to the RespondentUniversity upon instructions issued by the Directorate of Higher Education through letter dated 9th October, 2013, the respondent through their letter dated 4th March, 2014 obtained details from all constituent colleges and the departmental Heads in relation to the financial burden that may accrue on grant of annual increment to the individual teachers. The Directorate of Higher Education has been informed through letter dated 30th April, 2014 containing the list of beneficiaries and the annual financial burden upon the State due to annual increment totaling Rs. 1,84,95,840/. The name of the petitioners are included in the list of beneficiaries. That amount would be released as soon as the State Government releases the fund. Learned counsel for the University however refers to their stand in the counter affidavit so far as claim for Associate Professor is concerned and submits that under 6th U.G.C revised pay scale since the petitioners were not having Ph.D degree 3. they were not found fit to be designated as Associate Professor .
Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the judgment rendered in V.N. Jha's Case (Supra) however also applies to their claim for designation of their post as Associate Professor, as Ph.D qualification is not a requirement. Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2021 of 2013 in the case of one Dr. Devendra Kumar, who also had the similar grievances relating to annual increment withheld due to lack of Ph.D qualification and also designation as Associate Professor in stead of Lecturer, Selection Grade as per UGC Guidelines.
Taking into account the similar stand of the same respondent Vinoba Bhave Unviesity and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent state, the writ petition of Dr. Devendra Kumar was disposed of vide judgment dated 23rd July, 2015 in the following manner:
"Learned counsel for the University submits that in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of V. N. Jha (Supra), the Department of Human Resources Development has sought for necessary details of beneficiary teaching employees of the University and the financial burden that may entail on grant of such annual increments. This has been supplied to the Department of Human Resources Development by the University through letter no. 527/14 dated 30.04.2014 also annexed in their counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the respondent -State submits that the petitioner has a legitimate claim to be designated as Associate Professor but only from the date he has obtained Ph.D. Qualification. These grievances can be considered by the Competent Authority under the respondent-State and the University in terms of UGC Regulation and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of V. N. Jha (supra).
Taking into account these material facts on record as pleaded by the parties and the judgment on the point referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is considered proper that the aforesaid grievances of the petitioner be given due consideration by the respondent no. 3, Director, Higher Education, Ranchi in terms of the recommendation of the University as already forwarded for the purpose of grant of annual increment within a reasonable time. The respondent no. 3, Director, Higher Education, Ranchi would also consider the question relating to designation of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor on his acquisition of Ph.D qualification as aforesaid in terms of the UGC guidelines and the consequent claim of three non compoundable increments which the petitioner claims upon such acquisition.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3, Director, Higher Education, Ranchi to take a considered decision on the aforesaid grievances of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order supported by representation of the petitioner containing all necessary facts and documents.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."4.
It appears that the issue relating to annual increment is no longer resintegra on the grounds of lack of Ph.D qualification as per UGC Guidelines in view of the judgment rendered in the case of V. N. Jha (Supra). As would appear from the submission of the State Government in the case of Dr. Devendra Kumar, a person can make a legitimate claim to be designated as Associate Professor but only from the date he has obtained Ph.D qualification. In the present case, one of the petitioner i.e, Dr. Ashok Kumar is shown to have obtained Ph.D qualification in June, 2012.
Therefore taking into account all these material facts on record as pleaded by the parties and the judgment on the point relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is considered proper that the grievances of the petitioners be given due consideration by the respondent no. 3, Director, Higher Education, Ranchi in terms of the recommendation of the University as already forwarded for the purpose of grant of annual increment within a reasonable time. In case of individual petitioners who has acquired Ph.D qualification in terms of UGC Guidelines, the concerned petitioner would also be entitled to raise his claim for designation as Associate Professor from the due date which may be considered in accordance with law and as per UGC Guidelines by the respondent, Director, Higher Education Ranchi. Let such consideration be made on the aforesaid grievances of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks through proper channel from the date of receipt of a copy of this order supported by representation of the individual petitioners containing all necessary facts and documents.
Accordingly, the writ petitioners are disposed of .
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk