Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 802 (JHR)

Uday Kumar Prasad v. Birsa Agriculture University

2003-07-11

TAPEN SEN

body2003
Judgment Per TapenSen, J.-Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sanani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners in the instant case was that the Respondents have arbitrarily withheld the payment of increments to the Petitioners since 1994 and therefore, prayer was made in the Writ Application for issuance of appropriate order commanding the Respondents to release the same together with interest and fix salary• of the Petitioners on the basis of such increments. 3. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed a Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners. At paragraph-2, it has been stated that the University, by order dated 3.12.2001, granted increments to all persons working as Senior Technical Assistants, Junior Research Assistant and Agriculture Inspectors which had been withheld from 12.5.1993. 4. In support of the aforementioned statements, the Petitioners have enclosed the order dated 3.12.2001 which has been marked Annexure-19 to the said Supplementary Affidavit and upon perusal thereof it appears that an office order was passed ordering to release the increments with effect from 12.5.1993. By Annexure-20, the pay was also fixed in appropriate scales. Thus, the instant Writ Application, in so far as it relates to passing of an order directing the Respondents to release the withheld increments with effect from 1994 has become infructuous. 5. After the aforementioned order was directed in Court, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to paragraphs-5 and 6 of the same Supplementary Affidavit and pointed out that in spite of the fixation of pay etc. and in spite of the order dated 3.12.2001 and in spite of the fact that the Petitioners have been receiving their increased salary yet, the arrears of increments with effect from 12.5.1993 have not yet been paid to the Petitioners and that the Respondents have again withheld the annual increments for the period starting from 1st January, 2003. 6. In view of the fact that the Respondents have themselves come out with the order dated 3.12.2001 as contained at Annexure-19 wherein they have admitted that the increments which were withheld without any proper order was being released, it is therefore expected that the University will not take any stand which may unnecessarily cause complications by not paying arrears of increments. The concept of withholding of increment is a concept which can be resorted to upon completion of a proceeding and by way of punishment or a measure of punishment. Save and except the aforementioned criteria, the employer has no right whatsoever to withhold increments in a routine manner. If on the one hand the Respondents themselves say that the increments were withheld without any proper order then on the other, they cannot be allowed to withhold arrears of increments. Increments must be given and therefore this Court only observes that if what the Petitioners have stated is correct, then the Respondents shall immediately and forthwith "under (sicundo?) the wrong" and redress the grievances of the Petitioners. So far as the other grievance in relation to reduction of pay scale of the Petitioners as stated at paragraph-6, this Court in this Writ Application refuses to grant any relief on that score as it would amount to enlarging the scope of this Writ Application. The Petitioners may file individual representations in respect of such grievance which would be dealt with on their own merits. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall however be no order as to costs.