Dr. Ranjit Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Memo No. 307, dated 24.02.2004 as contained in Annexure-9 to the instant Writ Application pursuant to which, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in the reduced scale of Rs. 12,300 - 18,300 i.e. equal to the scale of Reader instead of fixing his pay scale in the scale of Rs. 16,400 - 22,000 applicable to a University Professor, in view of the University Grants Commission''s recommendations. According to the petitioner, his pay was already fixed in the scale of University Professor but now it has wrongly been reduced by fixing in the scale of Reader without any valid reason or notice to him.

According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi Department of Ranchi Collect under the Ranchi University with effect from 16.11.1978 in the scale of Rs. 700 -40-1100-50- 1600. Under the 18 months and 24 months statute of the Ranchi University, his services were confirmed with effect from 01.01.1981. He was promoted to the post of Reader under eight years'' merit promotion scheme on the recommendations of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Patna w.e.f. 22.12.1986. His promotion to the post of Reader which was confirmed vide Annexure-3, the Notification of the Ranchi University dated 20th August, 1999, with effect from 22.12.1986 Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of University Professor with effect from 16.11.1994 under the time bound promotion of Lecturer to the post of Reader and reader to the post of University Professor by issue of Annexure-4, dated 18.02.1997 of the Ranchi University. By issue of Annexure-5 by the Ranchi University, the services of the petitioner to the post of University Professor was confirmed with effect from 16.11.1994 The petitioner was appointed as the Principal vide Notification dated 26.08.1994 issued by the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi and presently he was posted as Principal of B.S. College, Lohardaga.

According to the petitioner, after he was appointed as the Principal, he was allowed the pay scale of the University Professor i.e. Rs. 3,700 - 5,700 which was later on revised as Rs. 4,500 - 7,300. His promotion as the University Professor was duly recommended by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission and as per the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the pay scale of the Reader is now Rs. 12,300 - 18,300 and the pay scale of the Professor is Rs. 16,400-22,000.

The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of issue of Annexure-9 i.e. Memo No. 307, dated 24.02.2004 by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Government of Jharkhand, addressed to the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi and Vinoba Bhawe University, Hazaribagh, the pay scale of the petitioner which he was getting as University Professor, was wrongly reduced and was illegally fixed in the scale of Rs. 12,000 - 18,300, i.e. the scale applicable for Readers, instead of fixing as pay scale at Rs. 16,400 -22,000 applicable for University Professor. Such reduction of pay of the petitioner was without any notice or any show-cause to him and therefore, the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said letter of the Government of Jharkhand, as contained in Annexure-9, the pay scale of three other similarly situated University Professors/Principals namely Prof (Dr.) Javed Ahmad, Prof. (Dr.) Veena Mahto and Prof (Dr.) Bahura Ekka were also reduced and they preferred a Writ Application being W.P.(S) No. 5-497 of 2004 before this Court. By order dated 20th July. 2005, this Court allowed the said Writ Application field the three aforesaid. Principals and quashed the aforesaid Memo No. 307, dated 24.02.2004 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand, on the ground that the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice since no prior notice to show cause was given to the concerned persons. The High Court directed the respondents to fix the pay of those writ petitioner in accordance with the law taking into consideration the salary they were receiving were as Professor and till the final decision was taken, the petitioners were allowed to continue to draw their salary in University Grants Commission Scale of Professor subject to final fixation as may be made. The photocopy of the Judgment in the aforesaid writ application being W P.(S) No 5497 of 2004 has been produced before me and it is submitted that the present case of the petitioner is fully covered by the said Judgment.

The State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, by filing counter affidavit, has stated that the substantial date of appointment of the petitioner was 01.01.1981 and as such, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Reader after completion of eight years from 01.01.1981 i.e. on or after 01.01.1989, but he was wrongly given the promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 22.12.1986 by the University. Since the petitioner became eligible to get promotion against the post of Reader on or after 01.01.1989 and therefore, his merit promotion against the post of University Professor could have been considered only on or after 01.01.1997 but, by that time the tune bound promotion scheme came to an end on 23.09.1995 therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get promotion against the post of University Professor on the said scheme. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Prof (Dr.) Javed Ahmad and others because of the fact that the substantive dates of appointment of Prof.(Dr) Javed Ahmad, Prof. (Dr.) Veena Mahto and Prof. (Dr.) Bahura Ekka were 01.06.1976, 01.06.1976 and 17.07.1972 respectively and therefore, they had completed the length of 16 years of service prior to 23 09.1995 and therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on different footings and is not covered by the Judgment of his Court passed in W. P. (S) No. 5497 of 2004 .

As noticed above, the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed in the lower scale pursuant to the Memo No. 307, dated 21.02.2004 as contained in Annexure-9 issued by the Government of Jharkhand but now the said letter issued by the Government of Jharkhand dated 24 02.2004 has already been quashed/set aside by this Court in aforesaid Writ Application being W.P.(S) No 5497 of 2004 holding it to be violative of the principles of natural justice and as such, now the said letter dated 24.02.2004 (Annexure-9) is not in existence at all.

Since the aforesaid Memo No. 307 dated 24.02 2004 has already been quashed by this Court and therefore, any order passed pursuant to the aforesaid Memo No. 307 dated 24.04.2004 cannot be sustained.

In the present case also, there is no dispute of the fact that no notice to show-cause or a chance of being heard was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of Annexure-9 to the writ application.

In this view of the matter, the fixation of pay of the petitioner in their reduced pay scale by the Ranchi University pursuant to the said letter of the Government of Jharkhand dated 24.02.2004 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application and pursuant there to the issuance of last pay certificate of the petitioner contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexures-9 and 10 are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law after giving a chance/notice to the petitioner to show-cause and on consideration of the materials which is produced by the petitioner in support of his claims.

Till the matter is decided by the competent authorities concerned, the petitioner will draw the salary which he Was already drawing before issuance of Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ application.

Accordingly, this writ application is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.

There shall be no order as to costs.