Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1357 (JHR)

Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-12-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. On the recommendation of the Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the year, 1972. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader and he acquired Ph.D. degree in the year, 2006. The petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.05.2008. Though, the petitioner acquired Ph.D. degree in the year, 2006, he was not granted the benefit of 3 non-compoundable increment allegedly in view of Clause 7 (iv) of letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development and thus, the petitioner received lesser amount on account of gratuity and leave encashment etc. and his pension was wrongly fixed. In several other cases similarly situated persons have been granted similar benefits and the plea taken by the State Government/University for not granting benefit of increment, has been rejected by this Court, however, in the present proceeding, the respondents have again taken a similar stand, which is liable to be rejected. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating that a decision was taken to withheld annual increment of the teachers who were not possessing Ph.D. degree till they acquired Ph.D. degree. It is further stated that in view of Clause 12 in letter dated 13.11.2001 whereby a decision was taken that the teachers who were promoted under State sponsored time bound promotion scheme/other schemes, but who do not fulfill the minimum criteria as laid down by the UGC, would not be eligible for annual increment and for promotion. A high level Committee was constituted by the State Government to examine revision of pay scale and service conditions of the teachers as recommended by the UGC and a report was submitted communicating that the UGC guidelines for promotion of the teachers were not followed which adversely affected the quality and coverage of higher education. In view of the recommendation of the Committee, resolution dated 20.11.2010 was issued notifying the revision of pay-scale of teachers of Universities and Colleges w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 4. A rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1, has been filed by the petitioner contending that, the stand taken by the respondent no. 1 in the present proceeding, is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in “Rajeshwar Pd. Verma & Others Vs. 4. A rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1, has been filed by the petitioner contending that, the stand taken by the respondent no. 1 in the present proceeding, is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in “Rajeshwar Pd. Verma & Others Vs. Vinoba Bhave University & Others” reported in 2009 (3) JLJR 221 , and other cases against which Letters Patent Appeals were preferred which also stand dismissed. It has been further stated that in view of provision under Clause 22 of the Statute which provides for grant of increment, any condition imposed by the State Government denying the benefit of increments, would be contrary to such statutory provision and this cannot be given effect to. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 stating as under: 4. “That so far as the prayer 1 (i) is concerned it is stated that for the payment of arrears of annual increment (of Vth Pay revision) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 the University has submitted the demand of the admissible amount of Rs. 3,64,769/ to the Director, Higher Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 1) and requested for the release of the said amount vide letter No. VBU/R/FS/2806/07 (Annx. 2). By way of reminder the University again requested vide Ref. No. VBU/ FS/ R/1854/2012 dt. 11.10.2012. The amount has not yet been released and as soon as the same is received it will be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. So far as the arrears of increment of 6th pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is concerned it is stated that the Government has declined for grant of the same. As soon as the State Government will release any amount towards the increment the same will be reimbursed to the petitioner. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 on 21.11.2012 gives the reasons for the non grant of 6th pay UGC arrears. 10. That with respect to the statements made in paras 10 & 11 of the writ petition it is stated that from a bare perusal of Anx. 1 and 2 of the writ petition it is apparent that the claim of Rs. 10. That with respect to the statements made in paras 10 & 11 of the writ petition it is stated that from a bare perusal of Anx. 1 and 2 of the writ petition it is apparent that the claim of Rs. 3,64,769/ accepted by the University and demand submitted to the H.R.D. Department (R1) for release of the amount which includes annual increment from 01.01.1996 to 31.01.2007 in the 5th UGC pay scale 12,000-18,300/. The said amount has not yet been received by the University. 11. That with respect to the statements made in paras 12 to 15 of the writ petition it is stated that the pay fixation chart approved by the H.R.D. Department and notified by the University, memo No. 2000 dated 22.12.2011 (Annx. A) shows that the petitioner's pay has been fixed provisionally under 6th UGC pay fixation charge of VBU. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2008. The H.R.D. Department has fixed Rs. 46,400/ as his basis pay on 01.07.2006 and increment of Rs. 1400/ (3% as per the 6th pay scale rule) has been granted on 01.07.07. 12. That with respect to the statements made in paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition it is stated that they are matters of records. As stated earlier, as per the Statute of the University the provisions of the University Act, the financial liability lies on the State Government. The University requested the State Government (R1) to release the admissible amount for the compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Court and upon that demand, the Respondent No. 1 issued letter No. 775 dated 22.06.2012 requesting the Registrar of the University to pay (Smt. Manju Sinha) from the internal source of the University which will be reimbursed and as such the payments were made to her. 13. That with regard to the statements made in para 18 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner has retired on 31.05.2008, and he is getting his pension on the basis of revised 6th UGC scale. He has received full amount of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other dues on 22.09.09 which will be evident from the letter of the Finance Officer of the University addressed to the petitioner vide Ref. No. VBU/Pen622/321/09 dated 19.09.09.” 6. He has received full amount of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other dues on 22.09.09 which will be evident from the letter of the Finance Officer of the University addressed to the petitioner vide Ref. No. VBU/Pen622/321/09 dated 19.09.09.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of letter dated 13.11.2001 and 20.11.2010, the grant of benefit of increment to the petitioner has been denied by the respondents which is not justified as, such stand taken by the respondents has been rejected by this Court in the earlier proceeding. He has further submitted that in W.P.(S) No. 3632 of 2011, the provision in paragraph no. 12 of resolution dated 20.11.2010 was challenged and it has been quashed by this Court and therefore, it cannot be made operative in the case of the petitioner. Relying on various other decisions of this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, as the petitioner was denied the grant of benefit of increment, he was paid lesser amount on account of gratuity, leave encashment etc. and consequently his pension was also wrongly fixed. A specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that, although similar claims of Prof. R.N. Sharma and Prof. G.C. Jha of the same college and one Prof. Smt. Manju Sinha were allowed by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for unjustified reasons. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has relied on letter dated 13.11.2001 and 20.11.2010 and contended that in view of the recommendation of the Committee a decision has been taken by the State Government not to grant benefit of increment to the teachers who have not acquired Ph.D. degree. 8. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the condition in paragraph no. 12 contained in resolution dated 13.11.2001 has been held arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3632 of 2011. In “Rajeshwar Prasad Verma & Others Vs. Vinoba Bhave University & others” and batch of cases, this Court has directed the respondents to grant annual increments and Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents have been dismissed by this Court. A similar claim has been made by the petitioner in the present proceeding and other similarly situated teachers of the same college have been granted similar benefit. Vinoba Bhave University & others” and batch of cases, this Court has directed the respondents to grant annual increments and Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents have been dismissed by this Court. A similar claim has been made by the petitioner in the present proceeding and other similarly situated teachers of the same college have been granted similar benefit. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. I further find that a stand has been taken by the respondent no. 1 that the grant of benefit of increment has been withheld till the teacher acquires Ph.D. degree however, I find that admittedly, the petitioner also acquired Ph.D. degree in the year, 2006 itself though, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of grant of increments. The respondent University has admitted the claim of the petitioner and accordingly, a necessary communication for release of an amount of Rs. 3,64,769/ has been made by the University to the department of Human Resources Development. 9. However, insofar as, the prayer for correction of the designation of the petitioner as an Associate Professor as per UGC letter is concerned, the same is not considered due to lack of pleading in the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment has wrongly been denied to him. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to calculate the amount of arrears which accrued to the petitioner in respect of annual increments and the consequent payment to be made to the petitioner. The pension of the petitioner would be fixed accordingly and payment of arrears shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Petition allowed.