Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 355 (JHR)

Baiju Murmu v. Ranchi University, Ranchi

2014-03-06

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT By Court, Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks issuance of direction upon the respondents to restore his actual scale of pay which he was getting till 1994 and has been reduced thereafter by the respondents. He also seeks declaration that the report dated 19th February, 1999 (Annexure8) is not applicable to his case. Consequently, the petitioner has also sought payment of arrears of difference amount which has been less paid to him under the scale which he was drawing since 1981. 3. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of Ghatshila College on 21st March, 1979 on the post of Library Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 220315. The said college was taken over as Constituent College on 24th November, 1980. The college thereafter was asked to submit the proposal for fixation of pay of the employees working against sanctioned posts i.e. Annexure3 strictly in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government vide letter dated 14th June, 1982 (Annexure3). The Principal of the College sent the proposal giving details in respect of the individual employees including the petitioner relating to their date of appointment. The scale of pay was fixed from 1st April, 1981 in the revised scale as also the date of next increment. As per the said letter the petitioner was shown in the designation of Upper Division Clerk and the scale revised was Rs. 680965/ with pay fixed at Rs. 710 on 1st April, 1981. 4. On reduction of the petitioner’s pay, the details of which has however not been enclosed in the writ petition, in October, 1994, the petitioner made representation before the respondents. After failing to elicit any response from them, he preferred C.W.J.C No. 2715 of 1997 ( R) before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment/order dated 27th July, 1998, directing the concerned respondents to take an early decision on the representation of the petitioner for fixation of his salary within the stipulated period. The petitioner pursued a contempt petition thereafter and it is said that the respondents constituted a Committee to examine instances of such employees like the petitioner whose scale was reduced and on the question of regularization of the services of such employees. The said Committee gave a report on 19th February, 1999, which is at Annexure8. The petitioner pursued a contempt petition thereafter and it is said that the respondents constituted a Committee to examine instances of such employees like the petitioner whose scale was reduced and on the question of regularization of the services of such employees. The said Committee gave a report on 19th February, 1999, which is at Annexure8. Thereafter, since the petitioner’s grievances were not being redressed, he has approached this Court in the present writ application for the reliefs prayed for. 5. The petitioner has contended that on the basis of a general report without any notice to the petitioner his scale of pay which he was getting since 1981 has been reduced in 1994 by the respondents, who have now justified the said act on the grounds that his services was not approved at the relevant point of time and has been done so subsequently in the year 1993. 6. In the aforesaid context, the other background facts, which are relevant to be noted are evident from Annexures 10 and 11 along with Annexure6. Annexure10 is dated 20th August, 1993, being letter no. 1154 whereunder, the State Government in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Bihar State University & College Employees Federation on 25th September, 1991, sanctioned certain posts for various colleges under the Ranchi University. Against Ghatshila College, in which the petitioner is working, it is shown that 28 Class III Post and 9 Class IV Post were sanctioned along with sanction amount for payment of Nonteaching Employees for the period August, 1993 to February, 1994. Vide Annexure11 dated 25th August, 1993, the State Government absorbed the services of certain Nonteaching Employees indicated in the list of Ghatshila College referring to the same judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner’s name does not figure in the said list. However Annexure6 which is of a subsequent date i.e. 20th January, 1995, being an office order of the Ranchi University is the list of employees regularized against the sanctioned post under staffing pattern. In the said college, the petitioner’s name is at serial no. 11. He has been shown to be under the designation of P.T.I(Untrained) and the date of regularization shown is 1st August, 1993. The said office order has been made on the reference on the post sanctioned vide Government letter no. 1154 dated 20th August, 1993 which is Annexure10 to the writ application. 7. 11. He has been shown to be under the designation of P.T.I(Untrained) and the date of regularization shown is 1st August, 1993. The said office order has been made on the reference on the post sanctioned vide Government letter no. 1154 dated 20th August, 1993 which is Annexure10 to the writ application. 7. In the aforesaid background of facts and reasons ,the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have treated initial appointment of the petitioner as without following any procedure for bringing him in Category-B vide office order dated 21st April, 1999 (Annexure9) prepared after the report of the Committee of the University dated 19th February, 1999 (Annexure8). According to the petitioner, the petitioner's services were already sanctioned and within the staffing pattern as would appear from the Annexures referred to earlier, especially Annexure4 and therefore the respondents are not justified in reducing his scale of pay treating him to be unconfirmed on a sanctioned post since his appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has justified the impugned action stating that the State Government itself vide letter dated 14th September, 1993 which is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, has revoked the letter no 1195 dated 25th August, 1993 which is Annexure11 to the writ application. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order at Annexure6 dated 20th January, 1995 under the signature of Registrar of the Ranchi University shows that the petitioner’s services have been regularized since 1st August, 1993 which the petitioner has never challenged. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of an affiliated college and therefore his services could not have been treated to be adjusted against the sanctioned post immediately after taking over of the said college as a Constituent college. The same has subsequently been done pursuant to the creation of post under the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure10 by the State Government where-after the petitioner’s services have been regularized. He further submits that from very perusal of different orders enclosed to the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed as Library Assistant, thereafter shown as Upper Division Clerk and subsequently has been regularized as P.T.I(Untrained). Therefore, there was no sanction to the post, which the petitioner held all throughout before he was regularized. 10. He further submits that from very perusal of different orders enclosed to the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed as Library Assistant, thereafter shown as Upper Division Clerk and subsequently has been regularized as P.T.I(Untrained). Therefore, there was no sanction to the post, which the petitioner held all throughout before he was regularized. 10. In such circumstances, the Committee considered the appointment of several such employees and classified such appointments into two categories, one being at Kha under which the petitioner is covered. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any restoration of the scale that he claims as his services have been regularized in August, 1993 on the post of P.T.I(Untrained) in the said college. 11. The relevant facts which have been narrated in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment, makes it evident that though the petitioner had been granted scale of pay of Rs. 680965/ on the post of Upper Division Clerk from 1981 after the college was taken over as a Constituent College in November, 1980, but, as a matter of fact and in law the petitioner’s services were actually regularized on 1st August, 1993 on the creation of post by the State Government vide letter no. 1154 dated 20th August, 1993 upon the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a litigation between the Employees Federation and the Respondents-State as also the University. The Ghatshila College is one of the colleges in respect of which such posts were created. Annexure-11, was relied upon by the petitioner, to advance that it does not contain the name of the present petitioner however the same had been revoked, admittedly vide Annexure-B dated 13th September, 1993. In such background Annexure6 is the order of regularization of the petitioner dated 20th January, 1995 which also refers to the creation of post vide letter no. 1154 dated 20th August, 1993. In the said letter also the petitioner has been shown to be regularized on the post of P.T.I (Untrained) from 1st August, 1993. It further appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Library Assistant whose designation was changed to Upper Division Clerk in the year 1981 and thereafter has been regularized as such as P.T.I(Untrained) in the year 1993. It further appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Library Assistant whose designation was changed to Upper Division Clerk in the year 1981 and thereafter has been regularized as such as P.T.I(Untrained) in the year 1993. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had held a substantive post after the college was taken over as a Constituent College, does not merit acceptance. The claim for a particular scale of pay in a Constituent College under the Respondents University is dependent upon the approval of the State Government and sanction of such post. Apparently, such post was created and sanctioned in the year 1993 on which the petitioner has finally been regularized. This obviously must be the reason for distinguishing two categories of employees as are mentioned at Annexures8 and 9 of the writ application. 12. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances and the reasons indicated hereinabove, no flaw can be found in the decision of the respondents to change the scale of the petitioner which he was already drawing. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that even after the order of regularization of the petitioner on the post of P.T.I (Untrained) a proper scale was required to be fixed. If that be so, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue the same before the concerned Registrar of Kolhan University, respondent no. 7 under which the College now falls by making a representation through proper channel duly supported with all facts and documents for proper fixation of his pay scale in his sanctioned post on which he is working. On receipt of such representation, the respondent no.7, Registrar of Kolhan University Chaibasa would examine the claim of the petitioner and take a decision in that regard within a reasonable time preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 13. Needless to say that if the representation of the petitioner finds favour with the Respondents-University, and any funds are required to be requisitioned for payment of any admissible dues to the petitioner, the same be made without further delay thereafter to the directorate of Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department for examining the same and release of funds. Dependent upon such admissibility of claim of the petitioner, funds in lieu thereof would also be released within a reasonable period thereafter. 14. Dependent upon such admissibility of claim of the petitioner, funds in lieu thereof would also be released within a reasonable period thereafter. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of in the aforesaid term. Petition disposed of.