JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-University. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17.05.2019, contained in Annexure-13 of the writ petition, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for allowing him the financial benefits in lieu of amendment to Article-3 of the Statutes dated 04.09.2003 as proposed and approved by the resolution of the Senate and assented by the Hon'ble Chancellor has been rejected. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Kudukh at Doranda College and since 27.03.1987, he has been continuously working. The Ranchi University, Ranchi has extended the service of the petitioner and he continued without any break. By notification dated 15.06.1990, the teachers of Tribal and regional languages, who were working on the sanctioned and vacant posts, were allowed to draw the salary on U.G.C. pay scale. From time to time, the State Government has extended the services of the Lecturers in Tribal language and approved the annual budget for payment of salary to them. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.700 of 1994(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 11.03.1997 for a decision in the matter by the Hon'ble Chancellor within two months. However, no action was taken by the State Government and vide letter dated 12.10.1998, the Hon'ble Chancellor directed the State Government and the Bihar State Inter University Board to draft Statute according to the extended cut-off date i.e. 15.07.1989 for regularization of the service of temporary Lecturer in Tribal and regional languages. In spite of remainder, nothing hat been done. Later on, the State of Jharkhand in compliance of the order passed by the Court formulated the draft Statute for regularization, which was placed before the Hon'ble Chancellor and vide letter dated 04.09.2003, the Hon'ble Chancellor had accorded assent to the draft statute for regularization of the services of purely temporary lecturers of Tribal and regional languages. Later on, the State of Jharkhand in compliance of the order passed by the Court formulated the draft Statute for regularization, which was placed before the Hon'ble Chancellor and vide letter dated 04.09.2003, the Hon'ble Chancellor had accorded assent to the draft statute for regularization of the services of purely temporary lecturers of Tribal and regional languages. Article-3 of the Statute is with regard to grant of increment, which is quoted herein below: “Subject to the conditions prescribed in the statute relating to qualifications of the teachers regarding stoppage of increments, Lecturers absorbed in the regular service under the above provisions shall draw their first increment in the prescribed scale on completion of one year of Service from actual date of recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.” Article-3 of the Statute was subsequently substituted on 21.01.2015, which is quoted herein below: “Subject to the conditions prescribed in the Statute, lecturers appointed on or before 15/07/89 shall draw their notional increment in the presribed scale not earlier than 15/07/1989. Provided that actual salary payment (including notional increments) of such Lecturers shall be effective from 18/04/2006, which is the actual date of recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission.” 5. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules has been wrongly applied in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that in the case of the petitioner, even those rules are applied then also the petitioner is entitled as Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules provide that financial benefit of a promotional post can be granted to the Government employee from the date he has assumed the charge of the post. He further submits that amended Article 3 has already been recommended by the Senate, which has been assented by the Hon'ble Chancellor. There is no occasion for the State Government to deny the said amendment. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission has granted regularization of teachers. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the University has got limited role in this writ petition. There is no occasion for the State Government to deny the said amendment. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission has granted regularization of teachers. 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the University has got limited role in this writ petition. He further submits that the Hon'ble Chancellor has already accorded assent of such substitution of Article 3 of the Statute and, thus, the petitioner is entitled for the relief. 7. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the instant matter relates to teacher appointed in Tribal and Regional language in different colleges under Ranchi University prior to 15.07.1989 and the matter of regularization of the service and pay fixation was pending. He further submits that the Hon'ble Chancellor of the University accorded his assent to the Draft Statute for regularization of service of purely temporarily Lecturers of Tribal and Regional languages under Section 36(6) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. He also submits that the Statute came into force from the date of assent vide letter dated 04.09.2003. As per the Statute, those Lecturers who have been appointed in the service of University/College purely on temporary basis in Tribal and Regional languages on or before 15.07.1989 and has been since then continuing in the service, shall be confirmed/regularized from the actual date of recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. He further submits that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission vide memo dated 18.04.2006 granted recommendation for appointment of 51 teachers along with the petitioner, who were appointed before 15.07.1989 on temporary basis and since been working as temporary Lecturers. The said recommendation was granted for 18.04.2006 in view of the amended Statute. The Ranchi University has forwarded proposal for fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He further submits that the Department submitted a proposal for the special approval of the Government, but the amendment in the Article-3 of the Statute has been declined by the Government and the Statute dated 04.09.2003 is still in existence. He also submits that the promotion is not a matter of right and cannot be given retrospectively. 8. He further submits that the Department submitted a proposal for the special approval of the Government, but the amendment in the Article-3 of the Statute has been declined by the Government and the Statute dated 04.09.2003 is still in existence. He also submits that the promotion is not a matter of right and cannot be given retrospectively. 8. In view of the above facts and having gone through the evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Senate of the University has approved the amended Statute on 04.09.2003 by substituting Article 3 of the Statute to the effect that the Lecturers appointed on or before 15.07.1989 shall draw their notional increment in the prescribed scale, which has been assented by the Hon'ble Chancellor. The amended Statute clearly says that actual salary payment (including notional increments) of such Lecturers shall be effective form 18.04.2006, which is the actual date of recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. No cogent reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to why this will not apply in the case of the petitioner. So far as Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules are concerned, those are not applicable in the case of the petitioner in view of the fact that the University is being governed by the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000, which is a complete Code with regard to functioning of the University. Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules do not make complete bar of retrospective promotion, nor debar payment of arrears of salary on such retrospective promotion will be evident from Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules where the authorities are competent to sanction benefit from retrospective effect. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sri Mahavir Pandey v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Pat 899. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “10. So, far as Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code is concerned, it is to be read alongwith other relevant rules, namely, Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules and other guidelines/rules issued by the State from time to time. 11. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “10. So, far as Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code is concerned, it is to be read alongwith other relevant rules, namely, Rule 74 of Bihar Financial Rules and other guidelines/rules issued by the State from time to time. 11. Sub-rule (b) to rule 58 relates to a direct recruitment in overseas, which is not applicable in the present case whereas sub-rule (a) of rule 58 relates to draw of pay and allowance attached to tenure of a post of incumbent which starts from the date the person assume the duties, subject to exception specifically made in the rule. The same do not make complete bar of retrospective promotion, nor debar payment of arrears of salary on such retrospective promotion will be evident from Rule 74 of the Bihar Financial Rules where the authorities are competent to sanction benefit from retrospective effect, but in exceptional circumstances and in other cases with the special approval of the Government.” 9. One of the ground taken in the impugned order is also erroneous in view of the fact that the Department has also approved the amendment in Article-3 of the Statute and subsequently it was said that the Government has declined such amendment, which is not correct in view of the fact that the officials of the Government are also members of the Senate. 10. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions and considering the amended Article-3 of the Statute which prescribes the effective date of actual salary payment (including notional increments), which is applied in the case of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.05.2019, contained in Annexure-13 of the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefits. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.