Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 515 (JHR)

Chandreshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-17

N.N.TIWARI

body2013
ORDER 1. I.A. no.2044 of 2013 has been listed today under the heading 'For Orders'. 2. In the said application, the petitioner has prayed for fixing an early date of hearing and disposal of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 1.3.2013 passed in W.P.(S)no.2241 of 2010(Dr. Akhaury Brajesh Kumar Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 3. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State as well as Vinoba Bhave University (V.B. University for short), Hazaribagh have agreed that the writ petition itself can be disposed of in terms of the said order. 4. Accordingly, the parties have been heard on merit and the writ petition as well as I.A. no.2044 of 2013 are being disposed of by this common order. 5. The petitioner holds the post of University Professor in Botany under the V.B. University, Hazaribagh. He was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Botany at S.S. Memorial College, Ranchi on 24.07.1976 and joined on the said post on 26.07.1976. The petitioner's appointment was made after adopting all the prescribed procedures of law and the provisions of Statute and Regulation of the University. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Reader on 22.12.1986 and thereafter given promotion to the post of University Professor in Botany w.e.f. 30.12.1992. The petitioner's pay scale was replaced in revised UGC scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Suddenly, by order dated 17.12.2002, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Reader by counting length of his service from the date of his substantive appointment. The respondents have reduced the length of his service for time bound promotion to the post of lecturer with effect from the date of substantive appointment whereas the petitioner's length of service is countable from the date of his initial appointment. It has been submitted that the impugned order/notification is wholly illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 6. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. The plea taken by the respondents is that before his substantive appointment, he was holding temporary post and that period of temporary service is not computable for the purpose of giving time bound promotion to the post of Reader/Professor. 7. 6. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. The plea taken by the respondents is that before his substantive appointment, he was holding temporary post and that period of temporary service is not computable for the purpose of giving time bound promotion to the post of Reader/Professor. 7. When the case is taken up today, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State as well as V.B. University, submitted that earlier same issue has been decided by this Court and has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court, holding that the entire period of service from the date of initial appointment is computable for the purpose of determining length of service. In view thereof, the Government has issued notification dated 03.04.2013 providing that the length of service of the employee of the University shall be computed from the date of his initial appointment. 8. In view of the said notification, no further order is required to be passed by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the said notification has been issued, the impugned order has not been withdrawn and that the respondents be directed to compute his length of service from the date of initial appointment. 10. Considering the said admitted position and submissions of learned counsel, this writ petition as well as I.A. no.2044 of 2013 are disposed of directing the respondents to compute the petitioner's length of service from the date of his initial appointment for all purposes and accordingly fix the petitioner's pay at appropriate pay scale by correcting the date of promotion of the petitioner on that basis. 11. The respondents shall also calculate the arrears of difference of pay admissible to the petitioner, after the correction of the date of his promotion, and pass order to that regard within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.