Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1134 (JHR)

Vedanand Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-26

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER Mr. Ananda Sen, J. - These petitioners are the Readers in Sahebganj College, Sahebganj under Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University. The petitioner no.1 joined the college on 05.11.1976, Petitioner no.2 on 03.02.1978, petitioner no.3 on 30.03.78, Petitioner No.4 on 02.11.1976, Petitioner No.5 on 01.09.1980, Petitioner no.6 on 17.07.1978 and Petitioner no.7 on 11.04.1977. They joined as Lecturers. Later on, they were also promoted to the post of Reader after completing 10 years of service, under the time bound statute. Suddenly, their initial date of joining was changed by the University and their substantive date of appointment was reckoned as 01.01.1981 on the ground that their services have been regularized/absorbed by the University under the provisions of Regularization Statue w.e.f. 01.01.1981. Thus, their substantive date of appointment changed to 01.01.1981 from their respective original date of appointment. Since, there substantive date of appointment was changed to 01.01.1981, their date of time bound promotion was also shifted to 01.01.1991. Due to the change made in the initial date of appointment, the pay scale of the petitioners were also changed. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent-University, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly their actual date of appointment is not 01.01.1981. The university has regularised their services w.e.f. 01.01.1981 and thereafter had shifted their substantive date of appointment to 01.01.1981 from their actual date of appointment. Petitioner further submits that the date of promotion was fixed as 01.01.1991 because their date of substantive appointment was taken to be 01.01.1981, which is also illegal. He lastly submits that the date of promotion should have been fixed taking into consideration the date of actual appointment of the petitioners and not from the date of regularization. 3. Counsel for the University submits that all these actions have been done pursuant to the direction of the department of HRD, Government of Jharkhand. 4. Counsel for the State supports the stands stating that since the petitioners were regularised w.e.f. 01.01.1981 their effective date of appointment should be treated as 01.01.1981 and not from their respective date of joining. 5. It is an admitted fact that the actual date of appointment of these petitioners is not 01.01.1981. On 01.01.1991, theses petitioners were regularised under the provisions of the regularisation statues. 5. It is an admitted fact that the actual date of appointment of these petitioners is not 01.01.1981. On 01.01.1991, theses petitioners were regularised under the provisions of the regularisation statues. The Department of HRD and the University considered this date i.e. 01.01.1981, which is the date of regularization, as the substantive date of appointment. The similar issue was raised and is decided in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar v. Vice Chancellor Ranchi University and others, in L.P.A No. 583 of 2009. Vide judgment dated 6th January, 2012, the Hon'ble Division Bench, relying upon a judgment in the case of Dr. (Mrs). Rafat Ara v. Ranchi University and others, as reported in 2009(1) JCR, 380 JHR has held that the petitioners are entitled to full relief and the initial date of the appointment of the writ petitioners would be considered as the date of appointment for all practical purposes. The said judgment passed in L.P.A.No. 583 of 2009 was challenged by the State by filing a Special Leave to Appeal No. 11707 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. After disposal of the Special Leave to Appeal, the department of Human Resources, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter addressed to all the Registrars of the Universities of the State on 02.04.2013, mentioning therein that, in terms of the judgment passed in the L.P.A. No. 583 of 2009, and after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal No. 11707 of 2012, necessary follow up action has to be taken. The initial date of appointment should be re-fixed and after fixing the same, the salary will have to be recalculated. Pursuant to the said letter, Sidhu Kanu Murmu University at Dumka vide Notification No. 38 of 2015 dated 17.5.2013 has corrected the initial date of appointment of each of the petitioners. 6. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners, already, to some extent, has been redressed. Now, the only issue which remains is in respect of calculation of the salary after re-fixing the pay by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand. 7. Since the initial date of appointment in respect of the petitioners has already been restored by the university pursuant to the direction of the Directorate of Human Resources, I see no ground as to why the pay scale of the petitioners will not be re-fixed. 7. Since the initial date of appointment in respect of the petitioners has already been restored by the university pursuant to the direction of the Directorate of Human Resources, I see no ground as to why the pay scale of the petitioners will not be re-fixed. The pay of the petitioners needs to be fixed taking into consideration their respective actual initial date of appointment and also the actual date on which the petitioners were promoted to the post of Reader. 8. The Director, HRD, is therefore directed to initiate an appropriate exercise so that the pay of the petitioners be re-fixed, after taking into consideration their initial date of appointment, which now stands corrected by Notification No. 53 dated 27.05.2013. The date of grant of promotion to the post of Reader will naturally and subsequently will have to be changed also. The Director, HRD is directed to complete this process within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and will ensure that after re-fixing the pay, the actual monetary benefit is granted to the each of the petitioners within a further period of three weeks. 9. This writ application is accordingly, disposed of. Application disposed of.