Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 724 (JHR)

Promila Srihan v. Ranchi University, Ranchi

2013-06-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to implement the order passed on 14.11.1978 by the Chancellor in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and for a further direction that the reduction of pay from Rs.6300/- per month to Rs.4500/- per month which has been effected from April, 1997 should not be given effect to in the case of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially a Research Scholar in the Post Graduate Department of Sanskrit in the Punjab University since 30.10.1963. She was appointed as Lecturer of Sanskrit in the Government College for Women, Ludhiana. A chart giving details of experience of the petitioner as Lecturer in other Institutes has been given which is extracted below: Institution Designation Period P.G. Department of Sanskrit, Research Scholar 01.01.1964 to 07.08.1966 Punjab University, Chandigarh Government College for Women, Lecturer in Sanskrit 03.01.1966 to 06.09.1967 Ludhiana Government College, Kullu and Lecturer in Sanskrit 28.09.1967 till 31.07.1970 Dharmashala under the Directorate Lecturer, College 01.08.1970 to 31.08.2001 of Education, Himachal Pradesh Professor and (i.e. till retirement) Ranchi University, Ranchi Women's University Professor College and P.G. Department of Sanskrit Total Experience on 01.04.1974=10 years and 3 months 3. n 10.09.1974, on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer with effect from 10.09.1974 in the pay-scale of Rs.4004080050950 vide notification dated 10.09.1974. The petitioner's appointment was confirmed by order dated 20.09.1974. It appears that one Smt. Satyabhama Mishra approached the Chancellor by filing a petition seeking promotion to the post of Professor and pursuant to the decision by the Chancellor, her case was considered by the University and she was promoted as College Professor. The petitioner also filed a representation before the Chancellor and vide order dated 14.11.1978, the Chancellor passed an order granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor with effect from 01.04.1974. The Registrar of the University issued a notification on 28/29.11.1974 promoting the petitioner to the post of College Professor of Sanskrit with effect from 01.04.1974 subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. The Registrar of the University issued a notification on 28/29.11.1974 promoting the petitioner to the post of College Professor of Sanskrit with effect from 01.04.1974 subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner continued to work on the post of Professor, but since the concurrence of the Commission did not come, the Registrar of the Ranchi University wrote a letter on 02.01.1993 to the Secretary, Bihar State University Constituent Colleges Service Commission, Patna, seeking concurrence of the Commission with respect to the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner. However, no such concurrence was received and in the meantime, Bihar State University Constituent Colleges Service Commission was dissolved. The petitioner also superannuated from service with effect from 31.08.2001. It appears that after March, 1997 the pay-scale of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.6,300/- per month to Rs.4,500/- per month. No notice was given to the petitioner before effecting such reduction in the pay-scale. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to give effect to the order passed by the Chancellor on 14.11.1978 and not to give effect to the order of reduction of her pay-scale from Rs.6,300/- to Rs.4,500/-. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which a plea has been raised that since the order of promotion of the petitioner was subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission and till the time the petitioner superannuated from service, concurrence of the Service Commission could not be obtained and therefore, the order of promotion of the petitioner could not be given effect. On this ground, the claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondent Ranchi University. 5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ petition and also bringing on record certain documents in support of her claim. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent Ranchi University bringing on record the recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission dated 15.10.2008 by which the petitioner has been promoted in the rank of Reader with effect from 01.02.1985. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Mr. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent Ranchi University bringing on record the recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission dated 15.10.2008 by which the petitioner has been promoted in the rank of Reader with effect from 01.02.1985. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that if the second prayer is allowed, it may not be necessary to adjudicate the first prayer of the petitioner made in the writ petition. The learned counsel has stressed on the plea raised in paragraph 27 of the writ petition, which is quoted below: “27. That in March, 1997 the petitioner as a University Professor was drawing basic pay of Rs.6,300/- per month which has been reduced to Rs.4,500/- with effect from April, 1997; consequently, other consequential benefits have also been reduced on the ground that until concurrence is obtained, the petitioner cannot be allowed the basic pay of Rs.6,300/-. Such deduction or reduction of basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.6,300/- to Rs.4,500/- per month from April, 1997 by reasons of gross neglect and inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and capricious.” 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner before reduction of the pay-scale from Rs.6,300/ to Rs.4,500/ has been effected by the respondent-University from April, 1997. He has further submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-University, the plea of the petitioner has not been specifically denied by the respondents. 10. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University contends that since the order passed by the University granting promotion to the petitioner was subject to the concurrence of the Public Service Commission and since no concurrence of the Public Service Commission could be obtained, the petitioner was not granted regular pay-scale and that was the reason her pay-scale was reduced from Rs.6,300/ to Rs.4,500/. 11. A perusal of the documents on record clearly indicates that the order of the Chancellor dated 14.11.1978 has not been challenged by the respondent-University. 11. A perusal of the documents on record clearly indicates that the order of the Chancellor dated 14.11.1978 has not been challenged by the respondent-University. Section 9 (7)(ii) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which deals with the powers of the Chancellor in the administrative and academic interest of the University is extracted below: “The Chancellor shall have the power to issue direction to the Universities in the administrative or academic interest of the Universities which he considers to be necessary. The direction issued by the Chancellor shall be implemented by the Vice-Chancellor, Syndicate, Senate and other bodies of the Universities as the case may be.” 12. It is not the case of the respondents that a show-cause was issued to the petitioner before reducing the pay-scale of the petitioner after March, 1997. I am of the opinion that the petitioner who has superannuated with effect from 31.08.2001 cannot be deprived of the pay-scale to the post of Professor, the post on which she continued to work till she superannuated from service. The University had implemented the order of the Chancellor and therefore, it is not open to the University to contend that since concurrence of the Commission was not given, the petitioner was not entitled for the pay-scale of Professor. 13. In view of the aforesaid, since no fault can be found with the promotion order dated 14.11.1978 by the Chancellor granting promotion to the post of Professor to the petitioner, on the ground that the concurrence of the Commission could not be obtained, it would not be in the interest of justice to deprive the petitioner her lawful legal dues particularly, after her superannuation from the service. 14. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of holding that reduction of pay-scale of the petitioner from April, 1997 cannot be given effect to and with a direction to the respondents to calculate and grant the pensionery benefits to the petitioner which will include pay revision, if any, at the time of her superannuation from service to the post of University Professor. It is further clarified that the petitioner would also be entitled for arrears of salary. Since the petitioner has superannuated in the year 2001, her claim would be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.