Dr. Baledo Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondentRanchi University and

Mr. Sanjay Piparwal, learned counsel for the J.P.S.C.

The writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 1.2.1985

and thereby shift back his date of promotion from 1.6.1986 to 1.2.1985 and accordingly fix the salary on the post of reader at the pay scale of Rs.

3700-5700 and Rs. 12000- 18000 and pay the difference of the salaries. The petitioner has further prayed to treat him on the post of University

Professor from 2-7-1988 instead of 2-7-1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300 and Rs. 16400-22400 respectively and fixation in U.G.C. pay scale

from 2-7- 1988 and difference and also prayed for replacement of pay scale in the UGC pay Scale 16400-22400 with effect from 1-1-1996 and

fixation of pay as per calculation with retrospective effect with effect from 2-7-1988.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.6.1974 Bihar University Service Commission, Patna recommended the name of the petitioner

for the post of Lecturer in Hindi Department of Ramlakhan Singh Yadav College, Ranchi and the petitioner was posted in the college.

In the year 1980 all the affiliated colleges including the Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College converted into constituent colleges of the Ranchi

University and the service conditions of all the teachers/employees of the constituent colleges are same. By notification dated 31-12-87 the petitioner

granted promotion to the post of Readers who had completed 10 years of continuous service with effect from 1-2-1985 subject to recommendations of

University Service Commission. Notification dated 1-9-1989 issued by the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University the petitioner granted promotion to the

post of University Professor with effect from 2-7-1988 in the pay scale of RS. 1500-2500 with other admissible allowances. Vide Annexure-7 the

Registrar, Ranchi University sent a letter to the Secretary Bihar State University (Constituent College) Service Commission, Patna for shifting the

dates of promotion of the petitioner from lecturer to Reader and Reader to Professor in which it was requested with respect to the petitioner to shift

back the date of promotion. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Ranchi University that the commission has never recommended for

the date of shifting of promotion. Mr. Nayak, counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the light of the above facts the petitioner is entitled for

the prayer made in the writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi University submits that the petitioner has retired on 30.04.2002 as the Principal, Janta

Shivratri College, Daltonganj. He moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6974 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2006 in that

writ the petitioner had prayed for direction to fix the pensionary benefits at the appropriate U.G.C. pay scale to which the petitioner was entitled after

his retirement. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass appropriate

order in accordance with law. Mr. Mehta further submits that the petitioner has come forward for payment of retiral benefits and in that view the

petitioner has not prayed for leave as he is sought in the present writ petition. Mr. Mehta further stated that the shifting of date of promotion from

1.6.86 to 1.2.1985 and from 2.7.1988 to 2.7.1992 and taking into account that the petitioner has moved before this court after delay of 17 years this

writ is fit to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the University has recommended the name of the petitioner for shifting of date

for promotion but the same has not been sanctioned and the petitioner had not approached this Court earlier before accepting his retirement but he

approached this Court after lapse of 17 years therefore, this case needs no interference.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.