The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2666 of 2021 1. Suresh Kumar Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh, Resident of – Village – Sindur (Nawdiha), P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 2. Md. Abdullah Ansari, son of Late Lal Mohammad Mian, Resident of – Sattar Colony, P.O. and P.S. – Bariatu, District – Ranchi. 3. Kishore Kumar Yadav, son of Late Chamar Gope, Resident of Village – Noora, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 4. Durga Turi, son of Late Karma Turi, Resident of – Ravi Nagar, Lepo Road, P.O. – Boddom Bazar, P.O. – Sadar, District – Ranchi. 5. Sarswati Devi, wife of Durga Turi, Resident of – Ravi Nagar, Lepo Road, P.O. – Boddom Bazar, P.O. – Sadar, District – Ranchi 6. Pappu Kumar Mali, son of Sri Laljee Bhagat, Resident of – Quarter No. 4, Vinoba Bhave University Colony, P.O. – Sindoor, P.S. – Korrah, District – Hazaribagh. 7. Sohan Ram, son of Late Kanhai Ram, Resident of – Matwari, P.O. and P.S. – Korha, District – Hazaribagh. 8. Akshay Ram, son of Late Mathura Ram, Resident of – Village – Hurhur Road Chowk, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 9. Niranjan Kumar, son of Bihari Ram, Resident of – Prabha Nagar, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 10. Bangali Prasad Mehta, son of Late Laljee Mehta, Resident of Vikas Nagar, Dipugarha, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 11. Dilip Das, son of Late Aditya Das, Resident of – Anandpuri, College More, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. 12. Tallat Hussain, Resident of – Alma Ikbal Colony, P.O. – Bara Bazar, P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribgh. 13. Vijay Kumar Pandey, son of Late Triveni Pandey, Resident of – Belkappi, P.O. and P.S. – Gorhar, District – Hazribagh. 14. Heera Lal Ray, son of Aklu Ray, Resident of Lakhari, P.O. – Pachamba, P.S. – Giridih, District – Giridih. 15. Shyam Sundar Yadav, son of Late Birju Gope, Resident of – Yadav Gali, Noora, P.O. and P.S. – Sadar, District – Hazaribagh. RC 1 … Petitioners V E R S U S 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. – Doranda, District – Ranchi. 3. Vinoba Bhave University, through its Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University Road, Sindoor, Hazaribagh. 4. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Vinoba Bhave University Road, Sindoor, Hazaribagh. 5. Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioners :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Jai Shanker Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rishi Bharti, AC to AAG-III For the V.V. University Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate 10/11.12.2024 2. Heard the parties. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to modify/amend the notification issued vide Memo No. R/369/18, dated 08.02.2018 to the extend that their services should be regularized against Grade-III post considering the fact that they are discharging the work in the University since 1994 onwards. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant consequential benefits upon regularization of their services in Class-III post along with arrears etc. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to provide salary to them for the present against Class-IV post on which they have been regularized since after regularization, they are not being provided salary for the Class-IV posts. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to provide arrears of salary against Class-IV posts since they have been regularized from 08.02.2018 and till date, the salary against respective posts have not been paid to them. According to petitioners, they are Grade-III/IV employees of the Vinoba Bhave University. Their services were regularized by the University 2 3. RC vide Notification dated 08.02.2018 as Grade-IV employees in prescribed pay scale and other admissible allowance as per University Rule and the same was made effective immediately. The Notification further mentions that the petitioners will get financial benefits after approval from the respondent no. 3. 4. It is case of the petitioners that from the year 1992 to 1995, the Vinoba Bhave University engaged services of the petitioners on daily wages basis at the time of its establishment as there were no formal posts then. The petitioners worked whole heartedly and made contribution towards smooth functioning of the University. In the year 1998, the service of the petitioners were abruptly terminated and petitioners were not compensated. The petitioners are the local people and comes from weaker section of the society. They had given considerable years of their lifetime serving the University. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that in the year 2012, the respondent no. 4, vide Notification dated 01.06.2012, engaged the petitioners on contractual basis for three months and further services of the petitioners were extended for eleven months vide Notification dated 01.06.2012. Since petitioners had served the University on contractual basis, they were regularised on 08.02.2018. From the Notification dated 01.06.2012, it is evident that some of the petitioners were appointed to the Class-III posts and some of them were appointed to the Class-IV posts in the University. Petitioners are working with full satisfaction in view of recommendation made by the enquiry committee constituted under Memo No. VBU/Estt./1638/15-Part-II 400/17, dated 30.01.2017 and in pursuance of the decision taken by the 140th and 141 meeting of the Syndicate held on 20.09.2017, under the Resolution No. 896/ 140/11 and on 13.01.2018, under Resolution No. 908/141/01 in Column Kha respectively. The respondent no. 3 provisionally regularized services of the petitioners on Grade-IV against the sanctioned posts vide letter no. 297, dated 02.09.2001 in prescribed scale. From perusal of Notification issued by respondent University vide Memo No. VBU/P/G/30/17/ R/ 396/18, dated 08.02.2018, it appears that services of the petitioners were provisionally regularized on Grade-IV posts suppressing the fact that petitioners are working on Grade-III posts. The RC 3 respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 03.01.2019, addressed to respondent no. 5 along with the relevant documents, requested for grant of approval for payment of salary and allowances to the petitioners but no heed has been paid. The respondent no. 3 is providing remuneration to the petitioners though petitioners are entitled for salary and other benefits. Petitioners also made representation for redressal of their grievance, but no heed has been paid. Being aggrieved, petitioners have been compelled to knock door of this Court. 6. Mr. Rajendra Krishna learned counsel assisted by Mr. Jai Shanker Tiwari and Mr. Pratyush Shounikya argues that services of the petitioners have been regularized by the University duly approved by the Syndicate. Thereafter, the same has been recommended to the State for release of salary to be paid to the petitioners on regularization and confirmation. Learned counsel further argues that stand of the State is not tenable in the eyes of law. Nowhere provisions of Article 14 has been violated. The services of the petitioners duly recognized and, thereafter, regularized by the respondents – University, cannot be said in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further argues that a direction may be issued to the respondents – State to release the fund for payment of salary for the sanctioned post in which services of the petitioners have been regularized. 7. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing University very fairly submits that admittedly services of the petitioners have been duly recognized since they were working against the sanctioned posts and thereafter regularized by the Syndicate. When services of the petitioners have been regularized, it ought to have been approved by the State and the amount against those posts ought to have been released for payment of salary etc. 8. Ms. Rishi Bharti, AC to learned AAG draws attention of this Court towards counter affidavit and submits that since the appointment of the petitioners itself was not in consonance with the Rules and regulations, the same cannot be termed as valid appointment and as such the claim for regularization itself is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The illegalities and irregularities cannot be approved by the State. In absence of any approval RC 4 from the State, rightly petitioners are not entitled for salary etc. 9. Having heard rival submissions of the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly services of the petitioners were duly regularized by the University. It is the University who has recommended case of the petitioners for releasing fund for payment of salary but the State has turned down their recommendations. From the documents annexed in the writ petition and the specific averments made in the affidavits, it appears that the State has exceeded its power and jurisdiction. The powers of the State and the University has been defined under Section 4(1)(14) and Section 35 of the University Act. If at all the State was aggrieved by the recommendation of the University, a clarification ought to have been sought for from the office of the Chancellor, the same was not done by the State and outrightly case was rejected, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The University being an autonomous body, power is vested for making appointment and thereafter regularization of their services. Exercising those powers as provided under the Act, appointments were made by the University and, thereafter, the services of those employees were regularized. If services of the employee is duly recognized and, thereafter, regularized, they are entitled for salary also. The State, on flimsy grounds, has rejected claim of the petitioners which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The State cannot be allowed to stop salary of such employees whose services have been duly recognized and thereafter regularized by the Syndicate of the University. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition stands allowed. Since services of the petitioners have been recognized from the year 2018 itself, they are also entitled for arrears of salary along with current salary, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. 12.
Decision
The writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 5