Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR, JJ.
Brajesh Kumar Verma, son of Late Sambhoo Nath Verma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No.2631 of 2018 WITH W.P. (S) No.4548 of 2015 WITH W.P. (S) No.4552 of 2015 WITH W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015 WITH W.P. (S) No.1323 of 2017 WITH W.P. (S) No.7736 of 2017 WITH W.P. (S) No.3206 of 2018 WITH W.P. (S) No.461 of 2019 WITH W.P. (S) No.558 of 2019 WITH W.P. (S) No.880 of 2019 WITH W.P. (S) No.4206 of 2019
Decided On : 09-05-2025
For the Petitioners:Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate Mr. Mayank Deep, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Advocate Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Pathak, Advocate Mr. Mohit Mani Kishore, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV Mr. Abdul Allam, Sr. Advocate Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-1A
An amendment to a statute requiring notification to come into effect cannot operate without such notification; thus, the petitioners were entitled to continue in service until the age of 65.
Headnote:(A) Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2011 - Section 2(v) - Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 - Definition of 'teacher' amended to exclude 'Demonstrators', causing their retirement at 60 instead of 65 years - Petitioners challenge premature retirement and denial of 6th Pay Revision benefits. (Paras 1-2, 12-16)
(B) Legislative Procedure - An amendment requiring notification to come into effect cannot operate without such notification - The 2011 Amending Act never came into effect due to lack of notification. (Paras 24-25, 32)
(C) Superannuation Age - The age of retirement for teachers was raised to 65 years, but demonstrators were treated as non-teaching staff and retired at 60 years. (Paras 33-34)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, initially appointed as Lab Assistants, were re-designated as Demonstrators but were retired at 60 years due to the 2011 amendment, which was not notified.
Findings of Court:
The 2011 Amending Act did not come into effect, thus petitioners should not have been treated as non-teaching staff and should be compensated accordingly.
Issues: Whether the 2011 Amending Act came into effect without a notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment could not take effect without the required notification, thus the petitioners were entitled to continue until 65 years.
Result: Writ petitions allowed with directions for payment of benefits.
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2011, amending the definition of the term ‘teacher’ under Section 2(v) in the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000, deleting the term “Demonstrators” from the said definition; and making them as persons holding Non-Teaching Posts, causing them to retire at age of 60 years instead of being allowed to render service till they attained the age of 65 years.
2. They also seek quashing of the order dt. 19.10.2016 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand denying them 6th Pay Revision benefits.
3. It is also their contention that they had been prematurely retired by the State Government. They also contend that taking advantage of the said amendment, they have been made to retire at the age of 60 years, though they are entitled to continue upto age of 65 years through the notification dt. 31.03.2015 by treating them as non-teaching employees who ought to retire at the age of 60 years as per Section 67(a) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.
4. The Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’) defined in Section 2 (v) thereof , the term ‘Teacher’ as under:
“Teacher” includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instruction in ay department, college or institute maintained by the University”
5. Section 67 (a) of the Act prescribed an age of superannuation for teachers of 62 years and that of a non-teaching employee was fixed 60 years.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed as Lab Assistants in State Universities such as Ranchi University and Nilambar Pitambar University.
7. After certain litigation prior to formation of State of Jharkhand, in the then Patna High Court and in the Supreme Court they had been designated as ‘Demonstrators’ by the State Government, [
8. According to the petitioner in W.P. (S) No.5490 of 2015, after the judgment of the Supreme Court, they all were re-designated as Demonstrators and a proceeding dt. 07.04.2003 was issued to that effect. It is also stated that thereafter 5th UGC pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 was given to them and the JPSC also issued recommendation for their service confirmation as Demonstrators on 02.12.2004, which was acted upon by the Ranchi University on 04.12.2004.
9. Thereafter, their Selection Grade Demonstrators’ Pay was fixed by the Ranchi University on 02.02.2006 which was paid to them.
10. Petitioners contend that suddenly, Government issued a notification dt. 28.09.2007 stating that re-designated Demonstrators would not be included in the teaching cadre and would not be given benefit of teaching posts.
11. Several re-designated Demonstrators filed W.P. (S) No.4752 of 2008 and the said notification dt. 28.09.2007 was quashed by the High Court on 27.01.2010, [
12. Thereafter, impugned Jharkhand State Universities (Amendment) Act was passed in 2011 (for short ‘the 2011 Amending Act’) deleting the post of “Demonstrator” from the definition of the term “Teacher” in Section 2(v) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. The said amending Act was published in the Gazette dt. 18.11.011 on 25.11.2011.
13. Section 1(ii) of the 2011 Amending Act stated:
“Section 1 (i) ..
(ii) It shall come into force on such date as the Government by notification in the Official gazette, appoint;”
14. It substituted Section 2 (v) of the Act defining the term ‘teacher’ with the following definition excluding the term ‘demonstrator
