Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 280 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-02-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT By Court - No one appears on behalf of the petitioners in this matter, which is pending since 2000. 2. The writ petition was initially filed by seven petitioners claiming themselves to be teachers appointed in one S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garhwa, which was a constituent college of Ranchi University. Subsequently on creation of the Nilamber Pithamber University, it has gone under the jurisdiction of the newly created University. Their prayer was to command the respondents to pay their regular salary as Lecturer of the Ranchi University from the date of their joining and also for their current salary after adjusting the amounts paid to the petitioners as loan advance in lieu of salary. Incidentally, apart from original petitioners, others claiming themselves to be the members of association of teaching staff of the said college joined in the present writ petition making a similar plea for paying regular as well as arrears of salary which was not being paid. The said I.A. no. 3750 of 2009 was allowed and those intervenors were permitted to be added as party in C.W.J.C. No. 2038 of 2000(R) vide order dated 24.05.2010 in the instant writ petition. Similar I.A. was preferred by Association of Nonteaching staffs of the same college being I.A. No. 1488 of 2010 and by the same order, they were also allowed to intervene in the writ petition. An individual Lecturer also sought intervention in I.A. No. 1490 of 2010 namely Kalika Prasad Singh, who was also as such allowed to intervene in the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent-State submits that this Court, during the pendency of the writ petition since the year 2000, had occasion to pass several orders, which were not only restricted to the grievances of teaching and non-teaching employees of the college in question, but at large in respect of release of arrears of salary of all the employees of the Universities such as Ranchi University, Vinoba Bhave University, Nilamber Pitamber University as also Kolhan University. 4. 4. It has been submitted on the part of the respondent-State that the component of the payment of salary of teaching or non-teaching employees of the various Universities under the respondent-State of Jharkhand including the present college in question comprised of the share of the State Government which is 20 % of the UGC scale and the rest 80 %, which is to be funded by the University Grant Commission. As the result of the orders passed by this Court on previous several dates such as 11.09.2009, 11.12.2009, 12.4.2010, 15.04.2010, 12.05.2010, 24.05.2010, 11.10.2011, 02.03.2012, 06.03.2012 and 28.03.2012, several amounts have been released in favour of the different Universities for payment of the salary of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Universities upon the requisition made by such Universities of the State. On the part of the respondent-State, reference has been drawn to an affidavit filed on 10.10.2011 in which letter dated 26.09.2011 has been enclosed, issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to the Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, Government of India, New Delhi with a request to release 80% of the total amount of requisition received from three Universities, which total Rs. 50,87,65,200/-so that payment could be made to the teachers at the earliest. 5. According to the learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, the respondent-State has been doing its needful in order to pursue the demand raised by the Universities for release of UGC arrears and for onward payment to individual employees of the University working in different colleges as also in the Universities. 6. Learned counsel submits that the present writ application, however, initially was preferred by seven individual persons of a particular S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garhwa with their individual grievances relating to payment of their salary under the Ranchi University. However, according to him, the scope of the writ petition has been sufficiently enlarged though it may not be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation as otherwise it is cognizable by the Division Bench of this Court. However, according to him, the scope of the writ petition has been sufficiently enlarged though it may not be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation as otherwise it is cognizable by the Division Bench of this Court. It has further been submitted that at the moment it is the invervenors, who were the Association of Teaching Employees of the said college in question and also Association of Non-teaching Employees, who are intending to pursue the matter on their behalf seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of arrears of salary for different periods i.e. from 01.04.1988 to 31.12.1995 and from 01.01.1996 to 31.03.2000. 7. I.A. No. 1360 of 2013, apparently has been preferred by the association of the teaching employees, therefore the counsel seeks to pursue the same and is present before the Court today. Counsel for the non-teaching employees association is also present to pursue the case today. 8. Having regard to the original prayer made in the writ application which was confined to individual grievances of seven petitioners, it appears that the grievances of the said petitioners perhaps may not be subsisting now and they do not intend to pursue their case and nobody appears on their behalf today either. So far as larger issue is concerned, various orders have been passed earlier as referred to hereinabove in relation to different Universities and payment of UGC arrears for such teaching/non-teaching employees of the Universities within the State of Jharkhand. It is also true that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the State Government has from time to time released the various amount to the different Universities for the payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching employees working under it. In that way, the pendency of the writ petition has obviously worked to the benefit of a large number of employees, who are serving in the different Universities of the State. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the present writ petition is basically an individual aggrieved writ petition and as such has been pending before this Court. It is also true and not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenors that they are being paid current salary since 2000 in their respective scales. 9. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the present writ petition is basically an individual aggrieved writ petition and as such has been pending before this Court. It is also true and not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenors that they are being paid current salary since 2000 in their respective scales. 9. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the larger issue relating to release of arrears of UGC is a matter, which is required to be properly addressed by the State Government and the Universities working under it with the University Grant Commission and the Central Government, Ministry of H.R.D, Department of Higher Education. 10. There may be instances like those raised by the intervenors herein of several such persons working in different colleges in teaching and non-teaching cadre relating to their arrears of salary for different periods may be prior to the year 2000 i.e. creation of the successor State of Jharkhand or even thereafter. These of course are individual cause of action and the aggrieved persons do have the liberty and opportunity to raise their grievances in their individual capacity in an appropriate manner before the appropriate forum. The intervenors in the present writ application, who are associations of teaching and non-teaching employees also have a liberty to raise their grievances for certain arrears relating to period prior to the year 2000 which have not yet been paid in a properly constituted petition before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. On that account, the scope of the present litigation cannot be enlarged and continued for an indefinite length of time when the original petitioners seem to have lost interest in pursuing the writ petition as their main grievances may have been redressed. 11. On that account, the scope of the present litigation cannot be enlarged and continued for an indefinite length of time when the original petitioners seem to have lost interest in pursuing the writ petition as their main grievances may have been redressed. 11. Therefore, since the writ petition has been pending since the year 2000 and now in the year 2014, it is desirable to give a quietus to the matter, more so for the reason that the larger issue relating to release of UGC arrears of the entire Universities of the State of Jharkhand and that too over a considerable period of time is something, which is addressable on the part of the State Government with due promptitude and seriousness with the UGC and the Central Government to take care of its responsibility so far as the Universities functioning in the State of Jharkhand is concerned. 12. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the more specific reason that the petitioners are no longer interested to pursue their writ petition now, it is not desirable to keep the writ petition pending and as such, it is, accordingly, closed. 13. However, at the same time, it is made clear that the intervenors, who are claiming to be teaching and non-teaching employees of the said college, are at liberty to agitate any remaining grievances relating to payment of outstanding arrears in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. It would be open to the concerned intervenors to pursue their grievances through proper channel through their concerned Universities with the State Government by bringing necessary attendant facts and documents to the notice of the concerned authorities. However, this Court refrains from passing any general direction in that regard apart from the observation made hereinabove. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. 15. I.A. No. 1360 of 2013 also stands closed. Petition closed.