IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.2874 of 2020
(30.11.2022)
Munni Devi ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Pay Scale – Parity – Claim for grant of sanctioned pay scale of Assistant – Respondent university is able to demonstrate and differentiate case of petitioner with those whose names have been mentioned in writ petition – Apart from facts, there is inordinate delay in filing present writ petition – Delay and laches on part of petitioner comes in way of equity – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
ORDER
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kinker Kumar, learned counsel for the Veer Kunwar Singh University and Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, learned AC to SC 13 for the State.
2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs;—
(i) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant sanctioned pay scale of Assistant to the petitioner like serial no. 1 to 59 employee’s list published by the V.K.S.U, Ara under the signature of Registrar, V.K.S.U, Ara dated 07.12.2013.
(ii) the Respondents further be directed to grant sanctioned pay scale of Assistant to the superannuated petitioner, who was appointed as routine Clerk as because several Routine Clerks who were Juniors to him and others have been granted sanctioned pay scale of Assistant from the date of their joining/ appointment and grant consequential benefits and pension.
(iii) The Respondents be directed grant him pay scale of Assistant having requisite qualification at the time of appointment/ joining i.e. 01.05.1982 on the post of Counter Clerk/ Routine Clerk pay scale Rs. 535-765/- superannuated on the same post as such getting less pension.
3. The short facts which led to be filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 29.04.1982, on the post of Counter Clerk in M.V. College, Buxar by the Principal of the College. It is further contended that after having served for more than 32 years of satisfactory service , the petitioner superannuated form the post of Routine Clerk from M.V. College, Buxar under the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.
4. The only point for consideration before this court is whether the case of the petitioner be treated at par with the persons named in paragraph no. 7 of the writ application, who have been allowed the pay scale of Assistant from the date of their appointment/ joining.
5. He submits that other junior persons who have also appointed on the post of Routine clerk on 29.04.1982 vide letter no. 1829-1930/82-83, they have been granted sanctioned pay scale of Assistant from the date of their joining but discrimination has been caused against the petitioner. In order to buttresses his submission, he further contended that the petitioner having qualification of Intermediate was appointed as Counter clerk on 29.04.82 and several employees , who were also appointed on the same date or on the same post or even below the post, as held by the petitioner ,they have been allowed the pay scale of Assistant denying the claim of the petitioner, though he represented before the competent authority of V.K.S.University but to no effect. He next submits that while the representation of the petitioner was pending consideration before the Vice Chancelleor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, in the meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2014.
6. On the other hand Mr. Kinker , learned counsel for the university vehemently confronted the submissions, made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the reliance placed on, by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Annexure-3, that similarly situated persons, who were also appointed as Routine Clerk, they have been allowed the benefits of Assistant, is wholly misconceived as there was some mistake in the designation of the employees mentioned in Annexure-3, which had later on corrected as an Assistant and the mistake was rectified. He further submits that since no post of Routine clerk was existing in Maharaja College, Ara. However, inadvertently, such designation was mentioned in Annexure -3 to the writ application and therefore, it was rectified vide memo no. 1380/GI/96 dated 25.05.1996.
7. He submits that in fact, the persons with whom, the petitioner is seeking parity, they were appointed pursuant to an advertisement, in terms of letter no. 1639/82 dated 03.12.1982 wherein the minimum qualification for the Lower Division Assistant was fixed as graduate
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Muralibabu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.