KRISHNA DEO TIWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs :

(2.) The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed on 25.01.1980 on sanctioned vacant post, by the Governing Body of BSK College, Maithan, Dhanbad. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting dated 07.10.1980 and an intimation was given to the Ranchi University by letter dated 06.06.1980. In view of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, the payscale of the petitioner was revised with effect from 01.04.1981 treating the date of appointment of the petitioner 01.02.1980. As some of the persons were terminated from service, they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 409 of 1991, which was disposed of on 25.09.1991 with a direction to consider the cases of such employees for absorption. The Vinoba Bhave University came into existence on 17.09.1992. The State of Bihar issued a memo dated 10.05.1991, whereby the benefit of absorption was extended to the employees who were appointed prior to 10.05.1986 and as the petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned vacant post, his service was also regularised. As noticed above, in view of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, the payscale of the petitioner was revised with effect from 01.04.1981 and the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 23. It is the case of the petitioner that two persons namely, Sri Parmeshwar Thakur and Sri Munna Singh, whose names also appeared at Sl. No. 4 and 8 respectively, have been granted the benefit, treating their date of appointment as the initial date on which they were appointed. However, in the case of the petitioner it has been treated as 01.08.1993. Objections were raised by the employees, however, the authorities refused to pay heed to the claim of the employees. Accordingly, the date of joining of the petitioner was not treated as 01.02.1980, rather it has been treated as 01.08.1993. Under these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, relying on various communications by the University.

(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, in which it has been stated that appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. The petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned vacant post and the posts were created only on 20.08.1993, in compliance of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the petitioner's service was regularised with effect from 01.08.1993. In paragraph nos. 9, 10, 11 and 26 of the counteraffidavit filed by Respondent No. 1, the following stand has been taken by the respondents: