CHANDRA MAULESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the petitioner as well as University and the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the reduction of his pay scale from the scale of Rs. 16,400 -22,400 for the post of Professor to 12,000 -18,300 for the post of Reader vide Annexure -5 and 5/1, issued by the Department of Human Resources Development, (Higher Education), Government of Jharkhand under the signatures of Deputy Director (Higher Education) and Deputy Secretary, (Higher Education) dated 25th February, 2003. By the aforesaid order the provisional pay of the University employees' including the petitioner, have been fixed in U.G.C. Scale w.e.f. 1st of January, 1996.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the duly constituted statutory body i.e. the University Service Commission (Constituent Colleges), in exercise of statutory powers recommended the case of the petitioner and others for promotion to the post of Professor under 16/25 years Time Bound Promotion Scheme acting upon which Ranchi University issued consequential notification dated 24th February, 2000, granting him promotion on the post of Professor. However, the State Government while granting the revision of pay as per the UGC recommendation has chosen to reduce the scale of the petitioner to that of Reader by the impugned order contained at Annexure -5. It is submitted that although the impugned order Annexure -5, does not reflect reasons of such reduction of scale but the affidavits filed on behalf of the State justified the same on the ground that the petitioner's services ought to have been treated as permanent from the date of his regular appointment in the year 1982 and not treating his service on temporary basis from January, 1979. 2012(2) JCR 153 (Jhr.). It is submitted that in the case of similarly situated person, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if the person has been appointed on the post of temporary Lecturer on a sanctioned post for six months and has continued on the said post for more than 2 years till the services were absorbed by the University on regular basis, he shall be entitled to the benefit of counting the period of service from the date of his initial appointment on temporary basis. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents -University has defended the grant of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Professor on the basis of the recommendation of the University Service Commission, but has submitted that the University has only notified the revised pay scale acting upon the direction of pay fixation made by the State Government vide Annexure -5. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents -State, on the other hand, by relying upon the averments made in their counter affidavit, has supported the impugned pay fixation, whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed in the scale of Reader i.e. 12,000 -18,300/ - by submitting that his initial appointment has to be treated from 1982 when he was granted regular appointment and on the basis of which the petitioner would not complete 16 years of service when he was granted promotion to the post of Professor in the year 1995. In these circumstances, the Respondents -State has justified its action based upon the powers conferred upon it under the Universities Act i.e. Section 35(3). It is further submitted on behalf of counsel for the Respondents -State that the wrong committed by the Universities, cannot be blindly approved by the State Government which has power under the relevant provisions of the Act to verify whether the sanction of post/promotion to the employee of the University concerned is in accordance with the statutes of the University and the Universities Act. In these backgrounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that taking into account the period of temporary service for grant of promotion to the post of Reader and Professor in the case of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and therefore the State Government has rightly fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner in the scale of Reader i.e. 12,000 -18,300/ - 8. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Patna High Court which is annexed as Annexure -A to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the Special Leave Petition against the said Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court vide Annexure -B to the affidavit. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the Respondents -State has submitted that it has been held therein that in case a teacher was holding the post of Lecturer validly and legally on the date of his absorption, he would be entitled to the benefit of the entire previous service. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law which has been declared by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri referred to (supra) has taken into account the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Direct Recruit Class -II Engineering Officers' Associations and Ors. -Vs. - State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 and held that if the appointee has continued in service uninterruptedly until regularization of service made in accordance with Rules the period of officiating service shall be counted. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. The issue involved in the present writ application is whether the period of temporary service from January, 1979 till January, 1982 in respect of the petitioner can be taken into account for the purpose of counting his services for granting him promotion to the post of Reader or Professor under the relevant Universities Statutes in question. 10. In the present case, the initial appointment of the petitioner was made in exercise of the powers under the Universities Act by order of the Vice Chancellor issued under the notification contained at Annexure -1. The petitioner thereafter continued on the said post till he was appointed on regular basis again by the University on the recommendation of the University Selection Committee by the order of the Vice Chancellor. Therefore the period since 1979 to 1982 cannot be discounted from his service as having been done illegally or an irregular manner. 11. From perusal of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Akhouri referred to (supra), it appears that it has been categorically held that if the person concerned has remained in temporary service after six months and if his services was not found or declared illegal, thereafter, he has been regularized by proper regular appointment, the person/employee concerned should not be denied the benefit for the period of temporary service while counting his service for the purpose of promotion to the post of Reader or Professor under the relevant Universities Statutes. 12. The relevant paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment referred by the Division Bench of this Court are being quoted herein -below: -