Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1136 (JHR)

Nagendra Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2013-10-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Lab Boy on 11.10.1977 and 13.10.1977 in the Doranda College and the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Peon on 4.3.1973 and 4.12.1976 respectively in the said college. The qualifications of these petitioners, as per statement made in Paragraph 6 to the writ petition, are I.A, B.Com and Matric respectively. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1989, since the college was badly under staffed with respect to Class III and Class IV staffs, the governing body of the college sanctioned 50 posts by resolution dated 22.1.1977 in addition to the practical subject, where 84 posts were recommended by the University. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that vide Annexure 1 dated 7.3.1990, these petitioners were promoted to Class III post by the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University. On promotion to Class III post their pay scale and other allowances were fixed w.e.f from 1.3.1990. The college in question also issued the consequential order on 17.3.1990. These petitioners continued to draw their salary and pay scale against Class III posts. Petitioner no.1 was working as Accounts Assistant in Arts Department and petitioner no.2 was also working as such in Science Fee Counter in the said college. Petitioner no.3 was working as Office Assistant and petitioner no.4 was working as Examination Assistant in the said College. The petitioners have categorically stated in Para 13 of the writ petition that by office order issued vide Annexure 4 in 1995, these petitioners were shown working in sanctioned posts in Grade IV. 5. According to the petitioners, many juniors to them have been regularized on Class III posts while these petitioners, who were also promoted to Class III posts, have been shown to be working in Class IV posts. In such circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court for directing the respondents to restore the pay scale of the petitioners to Grade III since the petitioners have been promoted vide notification dated 7.3.1990 to the said grade and their promotions have not been revoked as such till date. They have not even been paid any arrear of salary in Grade III. 6. In response, the respondent-State and the University have filed their affidavits. They have not even been paid any arrear of salary in Grade III. 6. In response, the respondent-State and the University have filed their affidavits. It is the stand of the respondent-State that the services of the petitioners were confirmed in Class IV upon the requisition sent by the University for approval of services of such class III and Class IV posts. The services of these petitioners having been confirmed in Class IV posts, are being paid salary for Class IV posts and also its revised salary from time to time. The petitioners are conscious of the fact that they are working in Class IV sanctioned posts since 1995 but have approached this Court in 2009 in the present writ petition after almost 14 years. It is their contention that Class III post in the said College is not vacant and the petitioners cannot be promoted against Class III post. 7. The respondent-University in their counter affidavit have also taken a stand that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were appointed prior to taking over of the college on 1.7.1977 while petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed after taking over of the College as constituent college of the Ranchi University on 1.7.1977. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that an Inquiry Committee was constituted by the University and based upon the report of the University, office order dated 2.12.1990 was passed that No work should be taken from such Grade III and Grade IV employees who were not paid their salary in their bank account through cheque prior to 30.11.1988. The order passed on 2.12.1990 was also to the effect that any appointment notified by College/University after 30.11.1988 is in violation of the order of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and, therefore, the services of such category of non-teaching staff should be cancelled and they should be dismissed with immediate effect. Since these 4 petitioners were appointed by the Principal of the College against unsanctioned posts, therefore, promotion granted to them vide letter dated 7.3.1990, Annexure 1 to the writ application, was cancelled pursuant to the order passed on 02.12.1990. Since these 4 petitioners were appointed by the Principal of the College against unsanctioned posts, therefore, promotion granted to them vide letter dated 7.3.1990, Annexure 1 to the writ application, was cancelled pursuant to the order passed on 02.12.1990. On the other hand, under Memo No. B/93237 dated 1.3.1995, the services of the petitioners were regularized against the posts available against Grade IV as would appear from the list, Annexure E to the counter affidavit filed by the Ranchi University, in respect of the Doranda College in question. 8. Counsel for the respondent-University also submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are Lab Boys in the Department of Chemistry and Physics and other two petitioners are peons as would evident from the said office order dated 1.3.1995, all being regularised in Class IV post. 9. In this background, therefore, it is submitted that when they have continued on Grade IV post since 1995 and drawing salary as such on the said post, such a claim made in the year 2009, is wholly barred by delay and laches. Otherwise also no legal right accrues in their favour to claim such relief. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been making representations before the respondent-University from time to time but no action has been taken. These petitioners are at the verge of retirement and, therefore, they should be granted reliefs prayed for by them by treating them on Grade III posts as per the notification dated 7.3.1990. It is further reiterated that said orders of promotion have not been recalled. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. 12. From perusal of the relevant records and also the statements made on behalf of the rival parties, it is apparent that these petitioners have been treated in Grade IV posts where their services have been confirmed in the year 1995 itself and have been drawing such scale since then. The University and the respondent-State have also taken a consistent stand that the promotion granted in the year March, 1990 by the Vice Chancellor was not in consonance with the University Act and after due inquiry such promotion were cancelled. 13. Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by the Ranchi University is a general order in respect of cancellation of such promotion carried out in respect of individual employees after 30.11.1988. 13. Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by the Ranchi University is a general order in respect of cancellation of such promotion carried out in respect of individual employees after 30.11.1988. In the aforesaid background, it is further evident from Annexure E dated 1.3.1995 that these petitioners have been treated in Grade IV on the respective posts shown against their names on regularization of their services in Grade IV posts of Lab Boys and Peons respectively. These petitioners have continued to draw their salary since 1995 on the said posts and approached this Court in the year 2009 seeking direction upon the respondent-University and State to grant them the benefits of Grade III post since March, 1990. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition after 14 years of issuance of such order of regularisation as contained in Annexure E to the counter affidavit. 14. In these background the prayer made in the writ petition is not only stale and barred by gross delay and laches but at the same time no legal right has been made out on behalf of the petitioners to claim that they are entitled to Grade III posts in the Doranda College in question and salary in lieu thereof. On the issue of raising of grievance relating to promotion after a substantial delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & others, reported in Judgment Today 2013 (12) SC 269 have once reiterated that such a stale claim should not be entertained under the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution. 15. Mere submission of representation to the competent Authority does not arrest time and make a cause of action alive, which otherwise has become barred by huge delay and laches. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue in question is illuminating. 16. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, no case for interference in the writ petition is made out, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.