AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Roshan, J
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for seeking a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner against the available vacancy of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics in Mandar College, Ranchi and to extend him the benefits of 5th, 6th and subsequent pay revisions.
The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics on temporary basis at Mandar College, Ranchi, far back on 29.06.1985, pursuant to which, the petitioner gave his joining on 05.07.1985. The said College was taken over by Ranchi University vide Notification No.1095 dated 19.08.1986.
After taking over of the College, a Committee was constituted by Ranchi University to scrutinize the appointments and it appears from the records that a report was submitted by the Secretary of the School on 14.02.1987 giving list of teachers who were working in the College at the time of taking over wherein name of the petitioner along with one Uday Kumar was mentioned.
It further transpires that vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989, the services of the teaching and non-teaching employees mentioned therein stood absorbed. Name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.2 under the subject Mathematics of the concerned College. This notification has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application.
Subsequently, when the State Government tried to reconsider their decision of absorption that led to filing of C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995. In the meantime, the University also regularized the services of Lecturers vide Notification dated 25.06.1998 wherein also name of the petitioner finds mentioned.
Further fact reveals that while in service, the petitioner was transferred to B.S. City College, Bokaro vide Notification dated 11.01.1990 (Annexure-8) and subsequently, on 12.12.1990 the petitioner was again directed to give his joining in his original College i.e. Mandar College, Ranchi vide Notification No.RU/VC/R/2543-2628 dated 12.12.1990. This fact shows that even after taking over of the College, the petitioner was continued in service and the respondents-authorities were issuing one order of posting or the other.
In the meantime, C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 was disposed of vide judgment dated 31.01.1997 directing the University to take steps under Section 4(1)(14) of the Universities Act in respect of regularization of the services of the Colleges which have become constituent colleges under different Universities.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997 constituted Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission vide order dated 12.10.2001. Ranchi University in the meantime on 29.11.2005 came out with a memorandum no.RU/VC/R368/05 proposing to regularize the services of the petitioner.
Subsequent thereto, a detailed proposal for regularization of the petitioner was also forwarded to Nilamber Pitamber University, Palamau on the basis of the said notification on 01.07.2009.
As the dispute could not be settled on the basis of the recommendation of the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently appointed Justice S.B. Sinha Commission on 19.08.2013.
The petitioner made an application before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission wherein he claimed his seniority over Sri B.K. Sahu. However, Justice S.B. Sinha Commission did not adjudicate the grievance raised by the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2015 observing that that the remedy of the petitioner lies before appropriate forum.
The petitioner in the meantime continued in his service. However, the respondents continued making payment of his salary as per the 4th Pay Revision and did not extend him the benefits of 5th Pay Revision, 6th Pay Revision and the 7th Pay Revision.
It is relevant to mention herein that the 6th Pay Revision was implemented with effect from 01.01.1996 and continued till 31.12.2005. Subsequently, the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision was accepted and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006 till 312.12.2015 and thereafter, the 7th Pay Revision came into effect from 01.01.2016. The petitioner in the meantime, superannuated from his services with effect from 31st January 2023; however, the retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner on the ground that there is a dispute regarding formal observation of the services of the petitioner which fact has been brought on record in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the University in paragraph 9.
Learned counsel for the respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein they have mainly pleaded that claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission as well as Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission. However, they have not disputed the appointment of the petitioner far back on 29.06.1985 and subsequent continuance in service till the date of his superannuation.
Admittedly, the Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha Commission did not adjudicate the claim of the petitioner on merits; rather disposed of the same vide order dated 18.03.2015 observing as under:-
“The remedy of the claimant lies before appropriate forum.”
Thus, such stand of the respondents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this Court in a catena of decisions in similar cases has decided the issue. In W.P. (S) No. 6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as under:-
Para 18- “… with reference to the government decision dated 18.12.1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is not the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the reflection of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached on the ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and accordingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as a governmental decision."
Para 20-"In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created in the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3) PLIR 1029) came to the following conclusions:….
Para 21- "As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Patna High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb the petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms of the original decision of absorption and notification considering the fact that the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181 (C)."
Para 22-"it is needless to say that once the University takes favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University will work out for the entitlement and request the State Government for grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary benefit may be extended to the petitioners."
This Court in W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 – Prof. Goverdhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand & Others, has held in paragraph 10 as under:-
“10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone which is competent to confirm/regularize the services of the employees of the newly converted constituent colleges and since the University has already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English at Marwari College, no further exercise is required to be undertaken for regularization/confirmation of the services of the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his services on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in fact, after serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed fact that the Petitioner all along has been paid his salary, but in the unrevised pay-scale and the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to 5th, 6th and 7th UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the Petitioner. The said benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on the pretext that services of the Petitioner were not regularized. Reliance placed by the State Government upon the Judgment of Dr. Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 2 PLJR 817, for denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on 29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Apart from that, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of the Patna High Court has already been referred to a larger Bench for re- consideration and, further, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra), has already distinguished the ratio of the said Judgment in the case of similarly situated employees.”
It is an admitted case that the services of the petitioner were regularized by the State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure-5); which letter has nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefits.
It is also an admitted position that the petitioner continued in service since the date of his joining i.e. 05.07.1985 till the attainment of age of superannuation i.e. 31st January 2023 and during the entire period, the petitioner was paid his salary, though at the unrevised scale. The respondents having taken work from the petitioner and thus cannot deny him the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Revisions.
Similarly, the Respondent cannot deny payment of retiral dues to the petitioner after having taken work from him for about 38 years.
Accordingly, the instant writ application deserves to be, and is, hereby, allowed as the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs of benefits of a regular employee which includes the payment of arrears of salary on the basis of the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Revisions as well as all benefits of superannuation.
The concerned Respondents are directed to issue a formal order and extend all consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order.
As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.