Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Amar Archar Tudu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.449 of 2015, W.P.(S) No.5818 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.3525 of 2014
Decided on : 05-11-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Mr. Samvesh Bhanj Deo, Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha
For the Respondent: Mr.Rahul Deo, Mr. K.K.Singh, S.C.VI, Mr. Suraj Prakash, Mr. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, adv
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior approval from the State government for any new appointments involving financial liabilities, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Reversion from Class-III to Class-IV Post - Jharkhand University Act, 2000, Section 35 - The judgment discusses the reversion of employees from Class-III to Class-IV post and the applicability of Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000. It highlights the provisions of the Act, the authority to create financial liabilities, and the approval process for appointments, emphasizing the need for prior approval from the State government for any new appointments involving financial liabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were initially appointed on Class-III posts but were subsequently reverted to Class-IV posts without notice. They challenged the reversion, citing lack of natural justice and downgrading of pay scale as punishment. The court considered the applicability of compassionate appointment and the provisions of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reversion from Class-III to Class-IV posts was not mala fide and that the petitioners were adjusted against Class-IV vacancies in the University as per the authority of the Vice Chancellor. Consequently, all writ applications were dismissed for lacking merit.
Issues: The issues involved the reversion of employees from Class-III to Class-IV posts, the applicability of compassionate appointment, and the interpretation of Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for prior approval from the State government for any new appointments involving financial liabilities, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000. It also found that the reversion was not mala fide and that the petitioners were adjusted against Class-IV vacancies in the University.
Final Decision: All writ applications were dismissed for lacking merit.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. Since common issue is involved in all these writ applications, as such with consent of the parties, all are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The grievance of all these petitioners are that though they were initially appointed on Class-III post on temporary basis pursuant to the decision of the respondent-University, but subsequently they were reverted into Class-IV post while modifying the earlier notification.
4. The facts of different writ applications are as follows:-
(i) The petitioners of W.P.S. Nos. 449 of 2015 and 3525 of 2014 were initially appointed on Grade-III post on 06.10.2012 under memo No.930/2012; pursuant to the recommendation of compassionate committee report issued vide notification No. 110 of 2012 dated 07.07.2012 under the signature of Vice Chancellor of Sidhu Kanku Murmu University, Dumka. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the petitioners joined and worked without any hindrance. However, all of a sudden vide notification No. 41 of 2014, issued under the signature of Vice Chancellor of Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka vide memo No.SK/MU/R-G/509 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014, the earlier notification No.110 of 2012 dated 06.10.2012 was partially modified to the extent that petitioners were placed/appointment on Grade-IV post in the scale of Rs.2500-3200.
(ii) The writ petitioners of W.P.S. No. 5818 of 2016 earlier moved before this court in W.P.S. No. 893 of 2015 raising the grievance that though they were working on Class-III post on Lower Division Clerk; however, the pay prescribed were not paid to them instead they were being paid in the scale of Grade-IV. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2016 directed the respondent university to consider the case of the petitioners with an observation to do scrutiny of the relevant service record taking into account as to whether the post on which they have been appointed are sanctioned or not by the State Government under the relevant provisions of Universities Act, 2000. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed and the same has been challenged in the present writ application.
5. Learned counsels representing the petitioners in W.P.S. No.449 of 2015 and 3525 of 2014 submits that the action of the respondents in reverting back the petitioners from Class-III to Class-IV post without giving any notice is bad in law, inasmuch as, no principles of natural justice has been followed. Learned counsels further contended that the ground taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is not applicable to compassionate appointment; as compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Learned counsels further contended that downgrading the pay scale amounts to punishment; as such, proper procedure should have been adopted before downgrading the petitioners in the lower pay scale. Learned counsels prayed for reconsideration of their respective cases as the petitioners are graduate and well trained and they have worked for almost two years in Class-III post.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.S. No.5818 of 2016 vehemently contended that the impugned order passed in the instant case is not tenable in the eye of law and further relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 469. Para-3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:-
“This Court issued a notice on 23-10-1990 and also directed that pending decision of this application she be permitted to continue her stay with her sons in the said quarter. The State has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant received an amount of Rs. 21,000/-as DCR Gratuity. She also received CGE Insurance amounting to Rs. 10,926/- and GPF amounting to Rs. 1717 of her deceased husband. She is also getting a Family Pension of Rs. 390 - per month, and as such, she cannot continue to stay in the quarter. This Court repeatedly requested the learned Counsel appear
