Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Arbind Kumar Lal, s/o. Late Sushil Kumar Lal and Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 245 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 357 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 358 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 359 of 2022 With L.P.A. No. 360 of 2022
Decided On : 24-06-2024
PAY REVISION - Salary and Financial Aid for Lecturers - Jharkhand State Universities Act, Section 35; Article 30(2) of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the applicability of Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, which mandates prior approval from the State Government for the creation of posts in educational institutions. The court also examined Article 30(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against minority institutions in granting aid. The court concluded that the policy decision dated 09.12.1982, which restricts financial aid to posts created after a certain date, was valid and applicable, influencing the decision to quash the earlier orders granting salary revisions to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, lecturers at Gossner College, claimed entitlement to 6th/7th pay revisions and pension benefits based on their appointments to sanctioned posts. They argued that they were being denied these benefits despite similar cases being granted aid by the State. The State contended that the petitioners were appointed after a policy decision (09.12.1982) that restricted financial aid to posts created after a certain date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge had not adequately considered the factual distinctions between the petitioners' cases and those of previously granted benefits. The court emphasized the importance of verifying the dates of appointment to determine eligibility for financial aid under the policy decision.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary revisions and financial aid based on their appointment dates relative to the policy decision dated 09.12.1982.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicability of the policy decision dated 09.12.1982 must be assessed based on the specific dates of appointment of the petitioners. If appointed before the cut-off date, they may be entitled to benefits; if after, they are not.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter for reconsideration based on the specific appointment dates of the petitioners, directing a decision within three months.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The issue involved in all these appeals is common, as such, have been directed to be listed together for their analogous hearing.
2. All the appeals have been listed together today and as such, hearing has been given for consideration of the issue.
Prayer:
3. The instant appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent are directed against the orders/judgments dated 09.11.2020; 08.03.2022; 10.03.2022; 25.03.2021; and 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2620 of 2015; W.P.(S) No. 2850 of 2021; W.P.(S) No. 3059 of 2021; W.P.(S) No. 1088 of 2021; and W.P.(S) No. 1023 of 2021, respectively, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitions have allowed directing the concerned respondents to release appropriate sanction/grant-in-aid in favour of the college in question for payment of salary to the incumbents who are holding the sanctioned post within a period of four months and on receipt of such amount the college authorities are directed to pay the salary to the petitioners who are holding such sanctioned post including the arrears of salary for which they are legally entitled within a period of two months.
Facts:
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:
All the writ petitioners/ respondents are working as lecturers in different departments in Gossner College. The grievance of the writ petitioners of writ petitions being WP (S) No. 2620 of 2015, WP (S) No. 2850 of 2021, WP (S) No. 1088 of 2021 and WP (S) No. 1023 of 2021 are that that they are being deprived of 6th/ 7th pay revision however, writ petitioner of WP (S) No. 3059 of 2021 prayed for fixation of pension in terms of 6th Pay Revision and all the consequential benefits arising out of 6th pay revision with arrears of salary.
It is the case of the writ petitioners that the governing body of the college with the concurrent of Bihar college service commission approved the appointment of petitioners on different dates. All the appointments of the petitioners were made on duly sanctioned post after following the procedure prescribed under the law.
Some of the names of the petitioners were sent to JPSC (Jharkhand public service commission) and some were recommended by the JPSC for the appointment in Sr. scale lecturers.
The writ petitioners were promoted by the JPSC and despite of their promotions the writ petitioners are getting benefit of 5th pay revision instead of 6th/7th pay revision. To put forth their grievance writ petitioners made several representations before the competent authority however in vain.
It is the case of the petitioners that as they are working on a sanctioned post without financial assistant by the State Government under Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act as such, the State Government is not releasing funds however they are releasing funds to only those lecturers who are working on sanctioned post with financial assistance.
However, identically placed lecturers in the college on the sanctioned post without financial assistance in which petitioners are also working filed writ petition being writ petition no. CWJC no. 3495 of 1992 (R) for a direction upon the respondents state to provide financial assistance and the Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition on 20.08.1999 directed the State authority to release fund to the college in question for payment of salary to the incumbents.
The State being aggrieved with the order preferred the appeal being LPA No. 158 of 2000 (R) which however was dismissed.
Writ petitioners claimed that their cases are on similar footing with that of CWJC no. 3495 of 1992 (R) and therefore by not providing the 6th/ 7th pay revision they are being aggrieved with the action of the respondents thus preferred writ petitions being WP (S) No. 2620 of 2015, WP (S) No. 2850 of 2021, WP (S) No. 3059 of 2021, WP (S) No. 1088 of 2021 and WP (S) No. 1023 of 2021 which have
The court established that financial aid eligibility for lecturers in minority institutions is contingent upon the date of their appointment relative to the policy decision of 09.12.1982, which restr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of teachers in minority institutions to salary out of grant-in-aid, as clarified by the Bihar State University Act, 1976, and the j....
The court established that the principle of parity in pay and allowances between government and minority school teachers is constitutionally mandated, and any deviation from this principle without a ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of legal provisions, specifically Section 35 of the Jharkhand University Act, 2000 and Section 5 of the Jharkhand Staff Sel....
The State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff as per Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the inability of government orders to override statutory rules.
The university has exclusive authority over faculty absorption and regularization based on commission recommendations, and previous government notifications remain valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
