Rajeshwar Prasad Singh vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and also AC to S.C -I for the State through V.C.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

a. Issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for fixation of pay of the scale of the petitioner in compliance of the decision of the Government of Bihar vide Memo No.454 in the pay scale of Rs.2,200-4,000 under the 4th Pay Revision Recommendation under the U.G.C regulation which were already decided by the Government of Bihar to be implemented and thus, the petitioner are entitled for corresponding pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 but because of latches of the respondents-University, the pay scales has not been granted to the petitioner.

b) Issuance of an appropriate directions upon the respondents for implementation of 5th pay revision recommendations of the U.G.C and 6th pay revision under U.G.C w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 02.01.2006 respectively upon the petitioner and to grant them corresponding pay scale of Rs.8,000- 13,500 and Rs.15,600-39,100 respectively.

c) Issuance of appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the resolution issued by the Government of Jharkhand for implementation of the 5th Pay revision under the U.G.C. Recommendations by which the pay revision has been implemented for Lecturer/College Lecturer/ College Physical Training Instructor only on those who have been appointed directly by the J.P.S.C after amendment of the Jharkhand Universities Act and thus totally ousting the petitioner from its applicability in a grossly illegal and arbitrary manner whereas, the petitioner who are all prior appointees, are entitled to the corresponding increase in pay scales upon the revision.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar issue has already been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2840 of 2010 and as such the instant case may be disposed of by giving liberty to this petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.7.

Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.7-University submits that if the petitioner will file a fresh representation along with copy of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2840 of 2010 and other required documents, the same shall be disposed of as early as possible.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the limited submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I hereby dispose of the instant writ application by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2840 of 2010 and other required documents before the respondent No.7 within a period of three months from today. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.2840 of 2010.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application is disposed of.