Urwashi Sinha, aged about 54 years, W/o late Rabindra Prasad, R/o Sector 6/A, Q v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 1st Floor
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5550 of 2023 Urwashi Sinha, aged about 54 years, W/o late Rabindra Prasad, R/o Sector 6/A, Q. No. 2067, P.O. & P.S. Sector 6, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 827013 … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834004 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002 3. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002 4. Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University through the Registrar, Office at Govt. Polytechnic Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Office at Govt. Polytechnic Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130 6. The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Office at Govt. Polytechnic Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130 7. University Grants Commission, through its Secretary, Office at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Metro Gate No. 3, PO and PS New Delhi, District … … Respondents New Delhi, Delhi, 110002. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 For the University For the U.G.C.
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate --- 04/5th February 2024 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioner’s husband, late Rabindra Prasad at Rs. 14,940 in the 5th Revised Pay Scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18300 on the date of completion of 5 years of service as Reader, and consequently pay 2 arrears of salary to the Petitioner from the date of the said pay fixation.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is widow of late Rabindra Prasad who joined as Lecturer on 11.12.1981 in the Department of Political Science in Bokaro City College and was promoted to the post of reader on 11.12.1991. The husband of the petitioner was also awarded Ph.D. degree on 09.01.2002. 4. The learned counsel submits that in the earlier round of writ application, the grievance of the husband of the petitioner was that the pay-scale was wrongly fixed at Rs. 10,000-15200 with effect from 01.01.1996 although he was entitled to fixation of pay-scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300. 5. The learned counsel submits that in a writ petition filed by number of persons bearing W.P. (S) No. 4162 of 2013, the pay of those petitioners was fixed at Rs. 12000-420-18300 in place of Rs. 10000-15200 with effect from 01.01.1996 and so far as the husband of the petitioner is concerned, he filed a
Decision
writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2020 which was disposed of by this Court and the husband of the petitioner was to file a representation before the Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad. However, in the meantime, he was expired on 19.04.2021. 6. The learned counsel submits that the pay-scale of the husband of the petitioner has been revised to Rs.12000 - 18300 but as per law and applicable circulars, upon completion of five years as Reader, the corresponding pay-scale is required to be revised to Rs.14940. The learned counsel submits that accordingly the pay is further required to be revised at Rs.14940 with all consequential reliefs including revision of family pension. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not approached the authorities for the redressal of the grievances which has been raised in the present case and had straightaway filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus upon the respondents. The learned counsel have also submitted that first the matter is required to be scrutinized and considered by the Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad (respondent No. 4) and upon scrutinizing the records, appropriate recommendation, if the husband of the petitioner is found entitled, is to be made to the State Government and then the State Government shall take an appropriate decision in the matter. 3 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that in the first round of writ application, the husband of the petitioner had claimed the pay-scale of Rs. 12000-18300 which apparently has been granted but the surviving grievance of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was entitled for a pay-scale of Rs. 14940 upon completion of five years as Reader. 9. No counter-affidavit, as such, has been filed in the present case and the petitioner has not even approached the respondents for redressal for the aforesaid grievance. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to call for a counter-affidavit. 10. However, for the redressal of her grievance the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 4 within a period of 15 days from today by filing a representation along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order. 11. Upon filing of the representation, the respondent No. 4 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law with regard to claim of pay-scale of Rs. 14940 as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and if the claim is found to be genuine and tenable as per applicable rules/circulars/guidelines etc., appropriate order be passed to recommend the same to the Director, Higher Education (Respondent No. 3) within a period of two months from the date of the representation. If any positive recommendation is made by the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 3 shall take a decision by way of reasoned order as per applicable rules/guidelines/circulars etc. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a recommendation from the respondent No. 4. 12. Since no counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case, this Court has not entered into the merit or otherwise of the case regarding the claim of the petitioner. 13. It will be open to the respondents to take decision in accordance with law. 14. If the petitioner is found entitled for one or the other benefits, the respondent No. 3 shall take appropriate steps so that the monetary benefit arising out of the reasoned order be also paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of the reasoned order. The orders to be passed by the aforesaid authorities be also communicated to the petitioner through speed- post. 4 15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)