Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Amar Archar Tudu and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.449 of 2015, 5818 of 2016, 3525 Of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.C. Mishra
For the Respondent: Mr.Rahul Deo, Mr. K.K.Singh, Mr. Suraj Prakash, Mr. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh
Headnote:
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 – Section 5 – Jharkhand University Act, 2000 – Section 35 – Appointment – Reversion – Salary – Grievance of all these petitioners are that though they were initially appointed on Class-III post on temporary basis pursuant to decision of respondent-University, but subsequently they were reverted into Class-IV post while modifying earlier notification. – Held, Section 5 of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act, 2008 clearly envisaged that commission has to recommend for appointment of any general/technical/non-technical services under State Government for all group Class-III/Group-C post. – From records it further transpires that it was in background of non approval of these appointments made on class Class-III/Group-C grade posts on compassionate grounds by State Government (HRDD) and non provision of any fund to University for payment of salary to these appointees including petitioners that respondent-University decided to appoint them against class IV (D category) vacancies afresh and sought approval of these new appointments from State Government. – It further transpires that on persistent pressure of petitioners and all similarly situated employees for payment of salary, respondent-University decided to adjust petitioners along with others who were appointed on Class-III post, to appoint them on Class-IV post which was sanctioned and vacant in different colleges in University and make payment of their salary from internal resources of University w.e.f. 2014. – First notification issued under Memo; whereby petitioners were appointed in Class-III post clearly stipulates that said appointment was temporary for one year and clause 5 of said notification clearly stipulates that said temporary appointment shall be regularized only after approval from State Government. – Contention of counsel for petitioners that Section 35 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000 is not applicable in case of petitioners because in compassionate appointment dependent of deceased employees are to be given appointment after relaxing normal rules and norms of appointment; is misconceived – Court don’t find any mala-fide on part of respondent-University; rather, it appears that all petitioners including other similarly situated persons were adjusted against Class-IV vacancies in University as respondent-Vice Chancellor was empowered to appoint them in Class-IV vacancies and pay their salary – Writ Applications Dismissed
ORDER :
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., AIR 1991 SC 469 [:1991(1) PLJR (SC) 76]. 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 Counse
