The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principle of natural justice in decisions affecting employees, the authority of the Public Service Commission to make promotion rules, and the illegality of recovery orders against the legal representatives of deceased employees.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 5871 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 476 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 476 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 5871 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.773 of 2018

5. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3481 of 2011 whereby and whereunder, while allowing the writ petition, the order as contained in letter dated 05.12.2014, issued by the Director, Higher Education wherein the University has been directed to send a proposal of pay-fixation of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Reader in the 6th UGC pay-scale and not against the post of University Professor, as is being claimed by the petitioner as also for payment of family pension in the last pay-scale drawn by the original petitioner i.e. late husband of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Dhaneshwar Jha in revised pay-scale, has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent University to pay the entire benefits accrued to the petitioner by way of family pension and to fix the pension/family pension of the petitioner under revised pay-scale. If the amount has already been recovered, the same has been directed to be refunded to the petitioner. The respondent-University has also been directed to pay the legally due amount to the petitioner with interest @ 5% per month within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order, failing which respondents will be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% apart from statutory interest and additional cost of Rs.5,000/-in favour of the petitioner.

6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The original writ petitioner joined the service on 31.03.1975 as a Lecturer of Chemistry in S.P. College, Dumka on the basis of recommendation made by the University Service Commission, Patna, Bihar vide notification dated 14.02.1981. The original writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader on 31.03.1985 on completion of 10 years of service and the same was duly approved by the Bihar State Service Commission, Patna, Bihar.

It is the case of the original writ petitioner that the promotion of the petitioner was due since 31.03.1991 to the post of University Professor from the post of Reader and vide notification dated 09.12.2006, the respondent-University had recommended the name of the original writ petitioner for abovementioned promotion with retrospective effect i.e., 31.03.1991 to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.

Subsequently, on 18.12.2007, a letter was issued by the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission by which the services of the original writ petitioner as University Professor was approved subject to fulfillment of certain criteria laid down by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. However, when the salary of the original writ petitioner and others was not fixed they submitted representation before the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department for consideration of their cases and upon which, the Principal Secretary vide its letter dated 22.11.2008 directed the Secretary to take appropriate decision with regard to the representation of the original writ petitioner for fixation of salary on the post of Professor after obtaining opinion of the Advocate General on the matter. Thereafter, a letter dated 16.09.2009 was issued by the respondent-Un