Sachchida Nand Das vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents-State as well as Mr.

Shivam Singh, learned counsel for respondent-University.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due

to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner under the 5th and 6th revised

pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 & 01.01.2006. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner in

revised scale under 6th pay revision since 01.09.2013 and also to release all post retiral dues under 6th pay revision, with statutory interest.

The petitioner was appointed as Account Assistant in Jamshedpur Cooperative College, Jamshedpur Cooperative College, Jamshedpur vide letter

dated 24.06.1983. The petitioner has joined on the said post on 27.06.1983 and his services was regularized against the post sanctioned vide order

dated 04.07.1995. The petitioner superannuated from the post on 01.09.2013. After superannuation of the petitioner, pay scale of the employees of

Jamshedpur Cooperative College, Jamshedpur was revised under 6th pay revision but petitioner’s pay scale could not be revised due to pending of

sanction and vacant post. The petitioner made representation on 19.05.2017 before the Vice Chancellor, Kolhan University, Chaibasa for grant of

pensionary benefit in his favour. Despite being request, the pay scale of the petitioner has not been revised as yet under 5th and 6th pay revision and

also arrears of salary has not been released in his favour and due to which pension and other post retiral dues have not been released in his favour

except provident fund.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Court in Ratni

Oraon and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 7818 of 2012) and further in case of W.P.(S). No. 1047 of 2017 (Sundar Tiu & Ors. Vs. State

of Jharkhand & Ors.), in which, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties, this Hon’ble Court disposed of the said

writ petition on 23.08.2018, with the following observations:-

“Be that as it may, from perusal of the records it transpires that the respondent-University has already recommended the case of the petitioners for

extending the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay Revision but no decision has been taken by the respondents-State. If the documents have not

reached to the office of the Director, Higher Education they are hereby directed to call for records of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order for

consideration of their cases for grant of benefits under 5th and 6th Pay Revision. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months

from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say if petitioners are found entitled for the benefits under the 5th and 6th Pay

Revision, the same shall be extended to them within a further period of one month.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case of Ratni Oraon and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 7818 of 2012), the entire

benefits have been extended to the petitioners of that case but in case of present petitioner, till date he has been discriminated from the said benefits

and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the present petitioner also in view of the fact that similarly situated co-

employees, Ratni Oraon and Ors., have already been extended the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for

the petitioners.

Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra and the same has already been decided by this Court in case of Ratni Oraon (supra)

and Sundar Tiu & Ors. (supra). Further, it transpires that the College has already recommended the case of the present petitioner to the University but

nothing has been brought on record by the University, as to whether the University has recommended the same to the State or not. In such

circumstances, I hereby direct the University to look into the matter and if till date the University has not recommended the case of the petitioner

before the State, the recommendation shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this Order and

further, the respondent-State is directed to release the funds to the College for making payment of the admitted dues to the present petitioner, within

four weeks thereafter, taking into consideration the case of Ratni Oraon (supra), in which payments has already been made to the petitioners of that

case.

Needless to say that if the University has already recommended the case of the present petitioner before the respondent- State, the respondent-State

is directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, extending the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision to the present

petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

As a sequel to the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.