Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 473 (JHR)

Nirmala Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-15

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the pay fixation chart dated 21.06.2007 issued by the respondent-HRD Department vide Annexure-9 to the writ application whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed on the lower scale of Reader, and the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to forthwith correct the pay fixation notification of the petitioner in appropriate replacement scale of University Professor w.e.f . 01.01.1996 as has been allowed to several similarly situated persons and for direction to immediately release arrears/entire difference of pay in favour of the petitioner and also to revise and fix the pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of revised pay scale. 2. Sans details, the factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the governing body of the respondent college vide its letter dated 24.02.1977 issued offer of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Hindi. In pursuance to such letter of appointment, the petitioner submitted his joining on 14.03.1977 and thereafter the services of the petitioner was regularized. The petitioner having fulfilled the requisite qualification of lecturer and also having rendered 8 years of continuous service, the Bihar State University Constituent College Service Commission recommended for promotion of the petitioner on the post of Reader with effect from 22.12.1986 as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. Thereafter, vide notification dated 20.08.1999 the services of the petitioner was confirmed as Reader w.e.f 22.12.1986. Since, the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility for promotion on the post of University Professor under the 16 years merit promotion scheme, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the expert Bihar State University (Constituent) Service Commission for promotion on the post of University Professor on completion of 16 years of service. In pursuance to the recommendation of the expert commission, the petitioner was promoted on the post of University Professor with effect from 14.03.1993 which was duly confirmed by the Ranchi University, by its notification dated 20.08.1999 as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. The University Grant Commission has recommended for revision of pay scale and as per the UGC recommendation, the old scale of University Professor was revised as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ application. The University Grant Commission has recommended for revision of pay scale and as per the UGC recommendation, the old scale of University Professor was revised as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ application. During continuation on the post of University Professor, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2004 after rendering about 27 years of unblemished service. But, to the utter surprise and consternation, the respondent authorities, HRD Department vide order dated 21.06.2007 has fixed the pay scale of the petitioner in the lower scale of Reader vide Annexure-9 to the writ application, which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the order under Annexure-9 to the writ application, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajit Kumar, J.C. to SC. (L & C) and Anoop Kumar Mehta appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pay scale of the similarly situated University Professor namely Dr. Ranjit Singh (W.P.(S) no.09/2006), Indra Kumar Choudhary (W.P.(S) no.3426/2011) and Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri (L.P.A no.583/2009) were revised their pay scale when they approached this Hon’ble Court. In the case of Dr. Ranjit Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) no.09/2006) this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 31.10.2006 quashed the impugned order and direction were issued to the competent authority to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the writ petition, but on the other hand has supported the case on the same grounds, which have been submitted in the writ petition. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it appears that in W.P.(S) No.4683 of 2006 order passed by the respondents was challenged. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.07.2009 observing that the case is squarely covered by the decision in Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara vs. Ranchi University & Ors. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.07.2009 observing that the case is squarely covered by the decision in Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara vs. Ranchi University & Ors. [ 2009 (1) JCR 166 (Jhr.)] and the view taken by the State Government is contrary to the decision of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara’s case (supra). 7. The order was quashed by this Court and the respondents were directed to re-examine the matter and take a fresh decision in accordance with the said decision. 8. The respondents without taking into consideration the said observation and the ratio laid down in Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara’s case (supra) have committed the same mistakes. 9. The impugned order vide Annexure-9 is contrary to the decision of Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara’s case (supra) and is also contrary to the order dated 16.07.2009 passed in W.P. (S) no.4683 of 2006 and the same is wholly illegal and unsustainable. 10. It appears that in case of Dr. (Mrs.) Rafat Ara’s as well as in Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri vs. The Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi & Ors. [ 2012 (2) JCR 153 (Jhr.)] are impliedly upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.CC-11707 of 2012. 11. In the said decision, it has been clearly held that temporary service shall be also counted for the purpose of considering length of service for the purpose of giving time bound promotion and for all other purposes, if the service is continuous. 12. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is continued to render uninterrupted services from the date of initial appointment i.e. 14.03.1977 till the date of retirement dated 30.04.2004 and the said appointment has been confirmed by the Ranchi University as also by the Bihar State University Service Commission. Therefore, there was no scope on the part of the respondents to ignore the period of service from the date of initial appointment till his substantive appointment in computing length the of petitioner’s service. 13. Since the impugned order dated 21.06.2007 (Annexure-9) is contrary to the aforesaid decision, the same being unsustainable cannot be valid in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is quashed and set aside. 13. Since the impugned order dated 21.06.2007 (Annexure-9) is contrary to the aforesaid decision, the same being unsustainable cannot be valid in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of holding that there being no break in service from the date of his initial appointment dated 14.03.1977, the entire period of the petitioner’s service from that date is computable for the purpose of determining length of his service and the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay scale on that basis. 14. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix the petitioner’s pay by correcting the date of his promotion, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pay the arrears/difference of pay within four weeks thereafter. 15. Since, the husband of the petitioner has died during pendency of the writ petition, the family pension and pensionary dues be recalculated and disbursed to her within a period of four weeks thereafter. 16. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands, disposed of.