PRAKESH KUMAR Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 1873/91 (R), C.W.J.C. No. 1963/90 (R). C.W.J.C. No. 1354/90 (R), C.W.J. No. 695/90 (R), C.W.J.C. No. 1433/90 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 1340/90 (R), were filed in this Court challenging the order issued by the Ranchi University, Ranchi (hereinafter referred' to as the University) directing the Principals of the constituent colleges, in which the petitioners were working as the teachers, not to make any payment to the teaching and non -teaching employees of those colleges with certain exceptions. Present two writ petitions, being C.W.J.C. No. 2087/90 (R) and 2279/90 (R) were also filed seeking similar relief. Vide order dated 8.2.1991, C.W.J.C. No. 2087/90 (R) was directed to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 2279/90 (R), in which this Court passed an order on 15.1.1991 directing it to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 1354/90 (R). C.W.J.C. No. 1354/90 (R) along with five other writ petitions, mentioned herein before, was disposed of by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 16.8.1995 directing the State Government as under -.In the aforesaid premises, we are compelled to issue a direction that the State Government must take a final decision with regard to the fate of these teachers of the constituent college in question and while taking that decision the State Government must adopt sympathetic attitude subject of course to the requirement of post of teachers of the College and eligibility of the teachers to teach in the college. This final decision should be -taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no decision is taken by the State Government within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order then the State Government and the University is directed to continue to pay the salary of the teachers at the minimum scale of pay as they were being paid after the College become a constituent College in accordance with the letter of the Commissioner of Education dated 26.9.1987.. However the present two writ petition could not be taken up alongwith the aforesaid six writ petitions inspite of the orders of this Court passed therein. These two cases have now been listed before us.

(2.) IT is admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in these two writ petitions is the same, which was involved in the six writ petitions decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.8.1995. Therefore, we are of the considered view that similar orders be passed in these two cases also. But we have been informed by the learned Counsel for the parties that in pursuance of this Court's aforesaid judgment dated 16.8.1995 the Government has not yet decided the matter and in simply paying the salary in terms of the judgment. If it is so, it is unfortunate. When this Court directed that the State Government to decide the matter it is bound to decide it within the time specified, it is true that this Court further directed that if the Government is not in a position to decide the matter within two months then it should pay the salary of the teachers at the minimum scale of pay but this later direction regarding payment of salary did not give a handle to the Government not to decide at all. It appears that there is complete in action on the part of the Government and the concerned authorities inspite of the judgment of this Court. We, therefore, consider it proper to direct the Government to decide the matter pursuant to the judgment of this Court within the specified by me without making any further direction for payment of salary. If the petitioners are not getting salary for last so many years they can wait for few months more.