Ashok Kumar vs e State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and

Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad.

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.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of the arrears of salary as per 5th, 6th and 7th pay

revision to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420- 18300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 till 30.05.2005 which has not been paid to the

petitioner as the issue is no more res integra and decided by this Court and also affirmed up to the Division Bench of this Court by which the issue

regarding two pay scales of Reader have been struck down considering only one post of Reader in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.

(S) No.4162 of 2013 affirmed in L.P.A. No.661 of 2019.

Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer as on 05.12.1981 in R.S. More

College, Govindpur, Dhanbad in the subject of History and was promoted as Reader as on 05.12.1991 and done Ph.D in the year, 2012. The petitioner

retired on 31.12.2019 from the same college. It is averred in the writ petition that under the career advancement scheme of the UGC which shows

that minimum length of service for eligibility to move in the grade of Lecturers, senior scale would be 4 years for those with Ph.D, 5 years with those

M.Phil and 6 years for those at the level of Lecturers and for eligibility to move into the grade or Reader/Lecturersâ€"Selection Grade, the minimum

length of service of Lecturer in senior selection grade shall be uniformly 5 years. It is evident from the order dated 06.09.2019 after the order passed

in LPA No.22/2018, the State Government came out with a notification directing all the Universities to state that total number of Readers of the entire

State in various Universities who were granted promotion under ‘Time bound promotion scheme/ Merit promotion scheme’, meaning thereby

after the order passed by the Division Bench, the respondent/State is taking stand for paying the arrears to all the Readers in one pay scale i.e.

Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- in 5th, 6th and 7th pay revision committee. It is mentioned that the petitioner was otherwise eligible for being placed at the

Lecturer Selection Grade in the scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300/- at the time of promotion to the post of Reader under the scheme, but he has been

placed in the Scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He further submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in

“Prashant Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, in W.P.(S) No.4162 of 2013 and “Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and

Othrs†in W.P.(S) No.3690 of 2018. He submits that the matter may kindly be disposed of with a direction to the respondent State to consider the

case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in cases of “Prashant Kumar Mishra & Others v. State of Jharkhand and

Othersâ€​ and “Geeta v. State of Jharkhand and Othersâ€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents are bound to act in terms of letter dated 11.09.2020 by which the arrears of

pay scales of Reader in 5th , 6 th and 7th pay revision has been given to the writ petitioners of W.P(S) No. 4162/2013, L.P.A. No. 22/2018 and

L.P.A. No. 661/2019 and cannot adopt discriminatory attitude in respect of the present petitioner by way of pick and choose method.

Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Binod Bihari Mahto Koyalanchal University, Dhanbad

submits that it is in the domain of the State to consider the case of the petitioner. He further submits that if any rectification will be done by the State

Government, the University shall comply the same.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the identical matters in the case of “Prashant Kumar Mishra†and “Geetaâ€

(supra) the matter has been set at rest which was affirmed in L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661/2019. It is stated that on the basis of the

above mentioned judgments, the Court may dispose of the instant case accordingly.

In view of the above admitted position, the respondent State is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by

this Court in “Prashant Kumar Mishra†and “Geeta†(supra) and also L.P.A. No.22 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 661 of 2019 and pass

appropriate reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner the same shall be communicated to the University within a period of

four weeks so that the benefit of the same may be accrued to the petitioner at the earliest.

With the above observations and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.