Govind Chandra Das And Others vs Vinoba Bhave University And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Learned counsel for the respondent-state Ms. Sunita Kumari is also present.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“ For issuance of direction upon respondent No. 3 for providing the benefit first and second time bound promotion due to them to which they have been entitled in view of Finance Department Resolution No. 10130 dated 01.08.81 and For issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide them the benefit of 5th and 6th pay revision due to them and the arrear of revised pay be paid to them

For issuance of direction upon respondent No. 8 to provide the benefit of revision of pay providing the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) w.e.f. the date on which the came in force and the arrear of difference of pay under the benefit of ACP by provided to petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 had issued a letter dated 15.07.2017 whereby the pay of employees of R.S. More College, Govindpur has been fixed giving the benefit of 5 th pay revision provisionally and it has been called to submit objection, if any, regarding fixation of pay of the employees of R.S. More College, Govindpur. He submits that though the pay of the petitioners has been revised provisionally, but the benefit of 5th and 6th pay revision has still not been paid.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 referred to page No. 18 of the writ petition which mentions as follows: “Proposal not as per sanctioned of post pay fixation rejected by the Higher Education, SL No. 15-29.” Learned counsel submits that the name of the petitioners falls within Serial Nos. 15 to 29 and it appears that some communication has been received from the Higher Education rejecting the proposal so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have got no intimation regarding any rejection whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioners has now submitted that the grievance of the petitioners would now be resolved by the respondent No. 3 Binod Bihari Mahto, Koyalanchal University, Dhanbad and not by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel has also submitted that the respondents be directed to provide them a copy of the aforesaid communication as mentioned in page no. 18 of the present writ petition so that they may take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also submitted that if any such order has been passed, the same is erroneous and illegal as the petitioners were throughout in regular service against sanctioned post and most of them have been retired.

Counsel for the State Ms. Sunita Kumari submits that if the petitioners approach respondent No. 6, copy of the order on the basis of which the endorsement at page No. 18 has been made by the University will be provided to the petitioners.

Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that some order has been passed by the Higher Education department as has been mentioned in page 18 of the present writ petition, but the same is neither on record nor the same has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and liberty is reserved with the petitioners to move before respondent Nos. 3 and 6 who upon representation provide a copy of the document on the basis of which the aforesaid endorsement has been made in page No. 18 of the writ petition and upon receipt of such communication, the petitioners may raise their grievance in accordance with law.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.