Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Dr. Kala Nand Thakur and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 4765 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2024
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Professors in various colleges in Jharkhand, challenged the legality of a letter issued by the Respondent prohibiting the payment of certain academic grade pay until recommendations were made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. They also contested a clause in a newly notified statute that stipulated monetary benefits from promotions would be effective only from the date of the statute's notification, rather than retrospectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned clause in the statute was arbitrary and violated the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to monetary benefits from their due dates of entitlement, as per the UGC Regulations.
Issues: Whether the clause in the statute that made monetary benefits prospective was valid, and whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefits from their due dates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the impugned clause contradicted the government's prior commitments and the UGC Regulations, which mandated that benefits should not be delayed. The court ruled that the statute's provision for prospectivity was arbitrary and unjust, violating the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned clause of the statute, directing the respondents to grant the petitioners their entitled monetary benefits from their due dates and to complete this process within four months.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application was originally preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs.
(i) For quashing of Letter No. 04/ Mu 1-163/2017-1680 dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and addressed to the Respondent No. 4.
(ii) Further prays for quashing of Letter bearing Ref. No. SKNU/R-G/713/ 18 dated 08.09.2018 (Annexure-5) issued in pursuance of the aforesaid Letter dated 28.08.2018 of the Respondent No. 1. directing the concerned head of the Departments and the Principal / Professor In charge of the constituent Colleges under the Respondent No. 3 not to pay the salary of teaching employees in the academic Grade Pay of Rs. 7,000/- or Rs. 8,000/- until recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
(iii) For a declaration that the impugned Letter No. 1680 dated 28.08.2018 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from complete non application of mind.
(iv) That during the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents notified the Statutes for promotion vide letter No.2083 dated 15.12.2022 in the light of UGC Regulations dated 30.06.2010. Hence Petitioners filed I.A. No.4236/2023 for amendment which was allowed and hence the additional prayer was incorporated.
(v) Amended Prayer "Quashing of condition prescribed in clause-1.3 of the 'Statute for promotion of Teachers from one Academic Level / Grade Pay to another Academic Level / Grade Pay under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2010' as notified vide letter No.2083 dated 15.12.2022 issued by the respondent No.2, to the extent that the said clause provides that the actual benefits of promotion under the aforesaid statute shall be given from the date of notification of the statute.”
In the midst of pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents notified the Statutes by way of Gazette Notification dated 15.12.2022 under University Grant Commission Regulation 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as UGC Regulation); in which vide Clause 1.3, it was stipulated that the monetary benefits accruing out of promotion or otherwise under the statutes will be prospective in nature and admissible on and from the date of Notification i.e., 15.12.2022.
Under the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioners preferred an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4236 of 2023 for amendment of relief in the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2023 and in compliance thereof, the Petitioners filed the amended writ petition incorporating the amended relief challenging the impugned stipulation under Clause 1.3 of the Statute dated 15.12.2022 which permitted the monetary benefits from the date of notification.
During course of hearing, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument only on the issue of clause 1.3 of notification dated 15.12.2022; wherein, in the last sentence it has been stipulated that the monetary benefit under the statutes shall be given from the date of notification i.e. 15.12.2022; which according to him is non-est in the eye of law. Learned Counsel in view of the fact that now Statutes under 2010 UGC Regulations have been notified, submits that the Petitioners are not shy of being assessed under the Statutes for promotion and as such the prayer originally made in the writ petition may only remain as academic issues which may be decided in appropriate case if situation so arises. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to see the legality of the impugned clause 1.3 to the extent of prospectivity of monetary benefits under the Statutes notified on 15.12.2022.
3. The brief facts as enunciated in the pleadings of the writ application is that the Petitioners No. 1 to 3 were duly appointed as Assistant Professor on 29.02.2008 and petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 03.03.2008 and Petitioner No. 5 on 01.03.2008 in the concerned C
AI
The principle established is that statutory provisions must not be arbitrary and should align with prior commitments made by the government, ensuring that employees receive their entitled benefits wi....
Promotions to the post of Professor must comply with U.G.C. regulations requiring eight years of service as Reader, and failure to provide a hearing before annulling promotions violates principles of....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the 2010 Regulations provide for the counting of previous regular service for the purposes of grant of benefits under CAS, without making a....
(1) It is mandatory for UGC to be guided by directions issued by Central Government on questions of policy relating to national purposes by discharging its functions under UGC Act, 1956.(2) A Judgmen....
Petitioner having been appointed under Section 7(5) of the Act, only the Government will have powers to determine such appointment, transfer and the norms thereof.
Point of Law : It is akin to doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burde....
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.
Regulations framed under Clause (g) of Section 26, which dealt with regulation and maintenance of standards and regulation of facilities in Universities.
The court allows review of its previous judgment due to the non-production of crucial evidence and documents, which misled the court regarding the salary fixation and entitlement to advance increment....
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
