Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 765 (JHR)

Syed Masood Imam v. Ranchi Universiy, Ranchi

2011-08-04

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
JUDGMENT It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner on being appointed as Lecturer, Department of Urdu, J.N. College, Dhurwa on 1.2.1975 was promoted to the post of Reader, Ranchi University with effect from 1.2.1985. In course of time, Bihar State University Service Commission under the scheme of time bound promotion made recommendation under letter no. 27/A dated 12.5.1998 for his promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 31.3.1989. In spite of that recommendation, the petitioner was never promoted to the post of University Professor by the University. Ultimately, the petitioner got retired from the post of Reader on 31.1.1999. That apart, the petitioner has still not been paid the amount payable towards full gratuity and leave encashment, though the petitioner in this respect had made representation before the Registrar, Ranchi University but nothing was done in this respect and, therefore, he has moved to this Court for a direction to the University to give post facto promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor in the light of the recommendation made by the University Service Commission as its recommendation was binding upon the University and also for a direction to the authority to make payment of retiral dues admissible to the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University stating therein that the case of the petitioner for promotion under 16/25 years time bound promotion scheme was considered by the Screening Committee but the Screening Committee did not find the case of the petitioner fit for promotion on the post of Professor and hence, did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Reader to the post of Professor and, therefore, recommendation made by the University Service Commission is not binding upon the University. 3. It has also been stated that since, as per the decision of the State Government, the amount towards revised gratuity is payable with effect from 15.11.2000, the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced gratuity and that the amount payable towards leave encashment has been paid for 115 days and, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in this writ application. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the University Service Commission had made recommendation for promotion of the petitioner from the post of Reader to the post of Professor, it was mandatory on the part of the University to accept the recommendation and that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced gratuity as it has been held by this Court that the revised gratuity is payable even to the person who retired on or after 1.4.1997. 5. As against this, Mr. A.K. Mehta learned counsel appearing for the University by referring to Rule 3 of the Statute relating to time bound promotion of Lecturer to the post of Reader and from the post of Reader to the post of University Professor submits that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered under proviso to Rule 3(2) to ascertain whether the service of the petitioner is satisfactory or not. The Screening Committee having found the service of the petitioner being not satisfactory did not recommendation or non-recommendation for promotion before the Commission. Upon which, decision is to be taken by the Commission. Thus, the report of the Screening Committee will have bearing upon the decision being taken by the University Service Commission. 8. In the instant case, the University Service Commission though had made recommendation for promotion of the petitioner but while making recommendation, the Commission does not seem to have taken into consideration the report of the Screening Committee. However, I need not express any opinion about the proprietary of the order relating to the recommendation made by the University Service Commission as the University has still not taken any final decision on the recommendation made by the University Service Commission and hence, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Ranchi University to take final decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. At the same time, the petitioner would file a representation before the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi respondent no. 2 putting forth the claim relating to retiral dues including the claim payable towards revised gratuity which has still not been paid to the petitioner. On receiving such representation, the respondent no. 2 shall be taking decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 2 putting forth the claim relating to retiral dues including the claim payable towards revised gratuity which has still not been paid to the petitioner. On receiving such representation, the respondent no. 2 shall be taking decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The amount found payable towards the claim be paid to the petitioner immediately thereafter.