Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 88 (JHR)

Raj Kishore Singh v. Ranchi University

2010-01-15

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : D.G.R. PATNAIK, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner, in this writ application are: (i) For a direction upon the Respondents to grant him promotion with effect from 18.01.1989, i.e. the date from which other persons junior to the petitioner in the Gradation list, were granted such promotions. (ii) For a direction to the Respondents to revise the pay-scale or the petitioner as per the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee and fix his pay in the scale of Rs. 1500-2750. (iii) To direct the Respondents to pay the petitioner his full salary for the period 08.10.1991 to December, 1995 after deducting the amount which has been paid to him on the basis of the lower pay-scales. 3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed on Class IV post as a Night Guard under the Respondent No. 4 on 29.11.1976 and thereafter his services were regularized on the said post. Though the petitioner was a matriculate and was appointed as a Night Guard but the work of Clerk was also taken from him. The then Principal of the Jagannath Jain College, Jhumritelaiya vide Notification dated-02.05.1987, granted promotion to the petitioner from Class IV to Class III post as Lower Division Clerk. Such promotion, which was granted to the petitioner along with nine other Class IV employees was, however made subject to the approval of the University. Thus, from the date of his promotion, the petitioner has been working on the Class III post along with his oilier colleagues. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded by the Principal to the Registrar of the Ranchi University for approving the promotion granted to the petitioner and to the other nine candidates. In pursuance to the recommendation of the Principal, the Ranchi University vide its Notification dated-18.01.1989 promoted five persons out of the ten recommended candidates. The petitioner's name though being at Serial No. 1 of the list of the recommended candidates, was excluded from the Notification. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his protest by way of a representation, claiming his promotion from the due date as granted to the others. The Principal of the College forwarded a second list by recommending the names of several candidates to the University for approval of their promotion and regularization of their services in Class III posts. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his protest by way of a representation, claiming his promotion from the due date as granted to the others. The Principal of the College forwarded a second list by recommending the names of several candidates to the University for approval of their promotion and regularization of their services in Class III posts. Again the petitioner was denied approval of such promotion, whereas approval was granted to the other persons below the petitioner in the recommended list. 4. The petitioner informs that under such compelling circumstances, he had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2356 of 1992 (R). The writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated-19.08.1992 with a direction to the Vice-chancellor of the University to consider die petitioner's grievance and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. When despite the directions contained in the aforesaid order of this Court, no compliance was made by the Respondents, a contempt application was filed by the petitioner, numbered as M.J.C. No. 120 of 1993 (R). Upon the contempt application being filed, a Notification dated 18.08.1993, was later issued by the Respondents promoting the petitioner to the post of Routine Clerk on the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- with other admissible allowances as per the Rules of the University but made effective from 06.08.1993. The petitioner's grievance is that the promotion ought to have been given to him with effect from 1989 when his other colleagues were granted such promotion. His further grievance is that after his transfer to Singhbhum College at Chandil at West Singhbhum in 1981, he was never paid his salary on the ground that adequate funds were not available for payment of full salary. 5. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents, as stated in the counter affidavit and explained by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, is that when the petitioner had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2778 of 1994 (R).for payment of salary with effect from 08.10.1991 onwards, by order dated-05.05.1995, this Court had declined to direct for payment of salary on the ground that the petitioner had not worked during the period, at least even till the date of disposal of the writ application and the petitioner had absented himself from duty up to 31.12.1995 and hence he was not entitled to the salary for the period of his absence. As regards the petitioner's demand for payment of the scale of Rs. 1500-2750/-, it is slated that such scale is not admissible to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents explains that earlier, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174 of 1999 (R) and while disposing of the writ application by order dated-07.06.2001, this Court had directed the Respondents-University to take a decision with regard to pay-fixation of the petitioner and the petitioner had undertook to abide by the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. In compliance with the order of the Court, the Pay-Fixation Committee was constituted and at its meeting held on 04.09.2002, it was decided that the petitioner, who was granted promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk, was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/-. In accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee, the Respondent-University issued a Notification on 28.05.2002, fixing the pay of the petitioner in terms of the recommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee. Learned Counsel further points out that after his retirement from service, but prior to the date of recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee, the petitioner filed yet another writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 944 of 2006. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-University to pay the petitioner the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- in terms of the appointment letter. Such payment was however made subject to the final decision in that regard by the Pay Fixation Committee. As regards the petitioner's claim for promotion from the retrospective date i.e. 18.01.1989, it is explained that the earlier promotion given by the Principal of the College was unauthorized and it was only provisional. The power to grant promotion under the statute is vested only with the Vice-chancellor, The petitioner's provisional promotion was also withdrawn and he was reverted to the post of Night Guard on and from 30.08.1991. It is also explained that when the petitioner's case was considered for his promotion, it was found that his performance was not satisfactory and further, that he was suspended during the period 18.12.1980 to 22.03.1987 by the College. Show-cause notices were issued to him from time to time against repeated acts of misconduct on his part and an enquiry was also conducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer had found the charges against the petitioner, proved. Show-cause notices were issued to him from time to time against repeated acts of misconduct on his part and an enquiry was also conducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer had found the charges against the petitioner, proved. Learned Counsel explains that when the candidature of the other candidates was considered and promotion was granted to them with effect from 18.01.1989, the petitioner's candidature was, also considered and his performance in duty having not been found satisfactory, he was not found fit for promotion at that time. It is further explained that subsequently when the petitioner's case for promotion was considered in the year 1992, the Respondents considering the petitioner's educational qualifications and other factors/criterias, had granted him promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the notified date of the year 1993. Learned Counsel submits further, that in the several writ applications, which the petitioner had filed earlier, the petitioner had never raised any issue regarding the grant of his promotion from the year 1993 and it is only after about ten years from the date of Notification for his promotion, that for the first time, he has filed this writ application containing the aforesaid prayer for promotion with effect from the retrospective date. Learned Counsel submits that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of promotion with effect from 18.01.1989 is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 6. As it appears from the rival submissions and the pleadings of the parties, the petitioner's case for his promotion was considered along with similarly situated other candidates in the year 1989. The petitioner was not found fit for promotion on account of his unsatisfactory performance of service. It is not denied by the petitioner that on the charges of several acts of misconduct, he was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was also conducted against him. The petitioner cannot claim that despite adverse remarks in respect of his performance of duties, he was entitled to promotion as a matter of right from the date when the others were granted such promotions. It is not a case where the petitioner's candidature for promotion was not considered at all at the time when the cases of other candidates whose names were considered and recommended for promotion. 7. It is not a case where the petitioner's candidature for promotion was not considered at all at the time when the cases of other candidates whose names were considered and recommended for promotion. 7. As pointed out by the Respondents, the promotion, which was earlier granted, though provisionally, by the Principal of the College, was not valid in view of the fact that the Principal of the College was not authorized under the statute to grant promotion to the Class IV employees to Class III posts. The approval to such provisional promotion having not been given by the University, the petitioner cannot claim any right or benefit on the ground that the Principal had granted him promotion. 8. The petitioner's claim for fixation of his salary on the scale of Rs. 1500-2750/- is also not tenable. This is because, admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Routine Clerk; for which the requisite educational qualification, was matriculation. Merely because (he petitioner being designated as a Routine Clerk, he cannot equaled himself with the regular Clerks for whose appointment, the requisite qualification is Graduation. The scale, as per the recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee for Routine Clerks, has been fixed separately, whereas the scales at a higher rate have been separately fixed for the regular Clerks. The petitioner therefore, cannot claim the benefit of such higher scales as extended to the regular clerks. As appearing from the order passed in the earlier writ application, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174 of 1999 (R), the Respondent-University was directed to pay the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- in terms of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner but such payment was made subject to the final decision of the Pay fixation Committee. The petitioner had undertaken in the aforesaid writ application to abide by the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. The petitioner cannot, therefore, resile from his own undertaking from abiding with the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. 9. The petitioner had undertaken in the aforesaid writ application to abide by the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. The petitioner cannot, therefore, resile from his own undertaking from abiding with the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the petitioner had though filed several writ applications before this Court claiming one or the other reliefs, but despite the fact that against the Notification by which he was granted promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the year 1993, he had never raised any grievance against the dale when such promotion was made effective, in any of the earlier writ applications. It also appears that such grievance has now been raised by the petitioner after more than ten years from the date of the Notification of his promotion. The petitioner, thus appears to have suffered lapses and latches on his own account. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I find that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of the reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed at the stage of admission.