ANIL KUMAR KERKETTA Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 26.11.2000 whereby the claim of the petitioners for arrears of salary from 1983 to 31.07.1993 has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Ranchi University, the petitioners applied for being appointed in a Class-III post. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 joined the Kartik Oraon College, Gumla on different dates in 1983 whereas, petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wages in the same year. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 was also appointed as Assistant on 13.08.1983 when the vacancy arose due to resignation of one Sheo Charan Oraon. As the petitioners were not granted the proper scale of pay they moved the High Court in C.W.J.G. No. 3585 of 1995 (R) which was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.1996 directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners. Since that was not done, the petitioners again moved the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1448 of 1998 (R) which was also disposed of vide order dated 26.10.1999 with a direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary on account of pay-fixation. The petitioners were directed to file a representation before the Respondent No. 3, who was directed to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. On 14.12.1999, the petitioners made a joint representation before the Respondent No. 3. In the meantime, a decision was taken by the Syndicate on 19.04.1999 whereby those employees who were appointed on the basis of Staffing Pattern, on daily wages basis and regularised in terms of Government Letter dated 20.08.1993 were made entitled for the revision of pay-scale. However, even by that time when the representation of the petitioners was not decided, the petitioners had to prefer a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 287 of 2000(R), in the proceeding of which a copy of order dated 26.11.2000 was filed by the respondents in the Court.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that,

(3.) Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.