Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1058 (JHR)

Arbind Kumar Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2020-11-09

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioners for a direction upon the concerned respondents to give the pay scale of promotion in Selection Grade/Sr. Selection Grade Lecturer as per 6th Pay Revision Committee to the petitioners and further for a direction upon the respondents to grant all consequential benefits arising out of 6th Pay Revision with arrears of salary and to extend all benefits to the petitioners in the light of judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No.3495 of 1992(R) and affirmed in LPA No.158 of 2000(R). 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issues involved in this case is now no more res-integra and has already been decided in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Syed Asad Raza & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2425 wherein at paragraph no.5 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “5. A reading of the above clearly indicates that after coming into force of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 w.e.f. May 16, 1976, it is enjoined that for appointment of a teacher prior approval of the State Government is necessary, However, exception have been engrafted in respect of (a) the institution run by the State Government and (b) institution established by a religious or linguistic minority. Even the non-obstante clause in sub-section (2) also makes exceptions to the clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act. Thus, it could be seen that for the creation of a post in a minority institution for the appointment thereof, prior approval of the University Vice-Chancellor or the State Government is not a pre-condition. The question, therefore, is ; whether such an appointee, the first respondent is entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. By operation of Clause (1) of Article 30, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish an educational institutions of their own choice. Under clause (2) of Article 30, the state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether, based on religion or language.” Learned senior counsel further submits that similarly situated persons namely, Dr. Under clause (2) of Article 30, the state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether, based on religion or language.” Learned senior counsel further submits that similarly situated persons namely, Dr. Jitendra Prasad Sinha and Smt. Manju Khalkho filed a writ application before this Court for similar reliefs being CWJC No.3495 of 1992(R), and this Court after relying the judgment passed in the case of Syed Asad Raza (supra) passed the following order:- “9. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I hold that the competent authority (State) is bound to sanction/grant in-aid in respect of the post in question, subject to such regulation as may be available under the law for use of grant etc. 10. The petitioners are entitled for a salary out of such grant-in-aid. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to release appropriate grant in favour of the College in question for payment of salary to the incumbents who are holding the post sanctioned vide letter no.335 dated 1st May, 1967 within a period of six months, at least from the date the posts were so sanctioned i.e. 1st May, 1987. On receipt of such amount, the college authorities are liable to pay salary to the incumbents who are holding such sanctioned post including the arrears of salary from 1st May, 1987.” Relying upon the aforesaid judgments learned senior counsel submits that similar benefits may be extended to these petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the admitted position and submits that if the case of the petitioners will be found on similar footing, similar benefits would be granted to them what has been granted to Dr. Jitendra Prasad Sinha and Smt. Manju Khalkho. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Asad Raza (supra) has already held that the competent authority is bound to sanction grant in-aid subject to such regulations as may be available under the law to regulate the recruitment of the service administration. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in the said judgment that by statutory operation the claimants are entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in the said judgment that by statutory operation the claimants are entitled to the payment of the grant-in-aid. From records, it also appear that after relying the aforesaid judgment, this Court in the case of Dr. Jitendra Prasad (supra) held that the State is bound to sanction/grant in-aid-in respect of the post in question, subject to such regulation as may be available under the law for use of grant etc. Respectfully relying the aforesaid judgments; the instant application is allowed and the petitioners are entitled for salary out of such grant-in-aid. 6. Accordingly, this Court directs the concerned respondent to release appropriate sanction/grant-in-aid in favour of the college in question for payment of salary to the incumbents who are holding the sanctioned post within a period of four months and on receipt of such amount the college authorities are directed to pay the salary to the petitioners who are holding such sanctioned post including the arrears of salary for which they are legally entitled within a further period of two months. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of.