Shyama Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent-State and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh,

learned counsel for respondents-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.

I.A. No.10282 of 2019

I.A. No.10282 of 2019 has been filed for correction in the name of petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of petitioner is ‘Shyama Sinha’ whereas in the memo of writ petition it has been typed

as Shyam Sinha.

The Interlocutory Application seems to be misconceived as the name of petitioner is already corrected as ‘Shyama Sinha’.

Accordingly, I.A. No.10282 of 2019 is disposed of.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for payment of difference of salary of her demised husband in view of

H.R.D.D., Jharkhand, Ranchi letter no.1590 dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure-3 series).

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2016 and he died on 08.07.2018 due to

certain medical issue. He was suffering from Liver Cancer. The husband of petitioner was Head of the Department, (H.O.D.), P.G. Department of

Mathematics in the S.K.M. University, Dumka and prior to that in the Godda College, Gooda as Reader in the subject of Mathematics. Letter dated

18.07.2016 was issued by the Director, Higher Education in the light of SLP (Civil) No.11707/2012 as per the decision of Apex Court wherein it was

decided in view of the proposal of Registrar of the said university for pay fixation for ten teachers of Godda College, Godda after calculating the initial

date of their joining as Lecturer and giving them the benefit of promotion to the post of Reader/Professor/H.O.D. in the 5th and 6th pay revision w.e.f.

01.01.1996 to 01.01.2006. Mr. Rahman submits that after counting their initial date of joining as Lecturer, the period from 01.01.1996 to December,

2005 and 01.01.2006 to June, 2016 and requested him to release the amount for the payment of the same to the concerned teachers. Salary of the

petitioner has been calculated which is indicated in Para 9 of writ petition. He further submits that as the petitioner was suffering from Liver Cancer,

Rs.15,04,484/- was paid to him, remaining amount has not been paid as yet. He submits that for the payment of remaining amount, he has already filed

several representations which are Annexure-5 series in the writ petition. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered in view

of judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.1362 of 2019. He also submits that other similarly situated persons are getting the benefit.

Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents-university and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A. IV jointly submits that for payment of rest amount,

the petitioner may approach before respondents-University by filing fresh representation and he will take decision in accordance with rules, regulations

and guidelines as early as possible.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to move before respondents-university by way of filing fresh representation along with all the credentials within

a period of four weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period the respondents-university will take decision in accordance with

rules, regulations and guidelines within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that respondents-State would co-operate in the

matter so that the prayer made in the writ petition be accrued in favour of petitioner at the earliest.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.