Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010

Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kishore Singh vs Ranchi University Th Its V.C. on 15 January, 2010
                              W.P. (S) No. 683 of 2004
              Raj Kishore Singh                                    ...      ...     Petitioner
                                     -V e r s u s-
              1. Ranchi University, Ranchi through its Vice Chanellor
              2. Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi.
              3. Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh through its Vice Chancellor
              4. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh
              5. Principal, Jagannath Jain College, Koderma
              6. Principal, Singhbhum College, West Singhbhum
              7. Principal, G.L.A. College, Palamau                ...      Respondents.
              For the Petitioner             : - Mrs. Sheela Prasad, Advocate.
              For the Ranchi University : - Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate.
              For the Vinoba Bhave University : - Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate.
              C.A.V. On :- 11/01/2010                        Delivered On: - 15 /01 /2010
4/ 15. 01 .2010               Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
              2.             The reliefs claimed by the petitioner, in this writ application are: -
                                              (i)     For a direction upon the Respondents to grant
                                              him promotion with effect from 18.01.1989, i.e. the
                                              date from which other persons junior to the petitioner
                                              in the Gradation list, were granted such promotions.
                                              (ii)    For a direction to the Respondents to revise the
                                              pay-scale of the petitioner as per the recommendations
                                              of the Pay Revision Committee and fix his pay in the
                                              scale of Rs.1500-2750.
                                              (iii)   To direct the Respondents to pay the petitioner
                                              his full salary for the period 08.10.1991 to December,
                                              1995 after deducting the amount, which has been paid
                                              to him on the basis of the lower pay-scales.
              3.             The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: -
                             The petitioner was initially appointed on Class IV post as a Night
              Guard under the Respondent No. 4 on 29.11.1976 and thereafter his services were
              regularized on the said post.
                             Though the petitioner was a matriculate and was appointed as a Night
              Guard but the work of Clerk was also taken from him. The then Principal of the
              Jagannath Jain College, Jhumritelaiya vide Notification dated-02.05.1987, granted
              promotion to the petitioner from Class IV to Class III post as Lower Division Clerk.
              Such promotion, which was granted to the petitioner along with nine other Class IV
              employees was, however made subject to the approval of the University. Thus, from
 the date of his promotion, the petitioner has been working on the Class III post along
with his other colleagues. Subsequently, a proposal was forwarded by the Principal
to the Registrar of the Ranchi University for approving the promotion granted to the
petitioner and to the other nine candidates.
               In pursuance to the recommendation of the Principal, the Ranchi
University vide its Notification dated-18.01.1989 promoted five persons out of the
ten recommended candidates. The petitioner's name though being at Serial No. 1 of
the list of the recommended candidates, was excluded from the Notification.
               The petitioner thereafter, submitted his protest by way of a
representation, claiming his promotion from the due date as granted to the others.
               The Principal of the College forwarded a second list by recommending
the names of several candidates to the University for approval of their promotion and
regularization of their services in Class III posts. Again the petitioner was denied
approval of such promotion, whereas approval was granted to the other persons
below the petitioner in the recommended list.
4.             The petitioner informs that under such compelling circumstances, he
had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2356 of 1992 (R). The writ application
was disposed of by this Court by order dated-19.08.1992 with a direction to the
Vice-chancellor of the University to consider the petitioner's grievance and dispose
of the same by a reasoned order.
               When despite the directions contained in the aforesaid order of this
Court, no compliance was made by the Respondents, a contempt application was
filed by the petitioner, numbered as M.J.C. No. 120 of 1993 (R). Upon the contempt
application being filed, a Notification dated-18.08.1993, was later issued by the
Respondents promoting the petitioner to the post of Routine Clerk on the pay-scale
of Rs.1200-1800/- with other admissible allowances as per the Rules of the
University but made effective from 06.08.1993.
               The petitioner's grievance is that the promotion ought to have been
given to him with effect from 1989 when his other colleagues were granted such
promotion. His further grievance is that after his transfer to Singhbhum College at
Chandil at West Singhbhum in 1981, he was never paid his salary on the ground that
adequate funds were not available for payment of full salary.
5.             Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents, as stated in the counter
affidavit and explained by the learned counsel for the Respondents, is that when the
petitioner had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2778 of 1994 (R) for
payment of salary with effect from 08.10.1991 onwards, by order dated-05.05.1995,
this Court had declined to direct for payment of salary on the ground that the
petitioner had not worked during the period, at least even till the date of disposal of
 the writ application and the petitioner had absented himself from duty up to

and hence he was not entitled to the salary for the period of his absence.

As regards the petitioner’s demand for payment of the scale of
Rs.1500-2750/-, it is stated that such scale is not admissible to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the Respondents explains that earlier, the
petitioner had moved this Court by filing a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174
of 1999 (R) and while disposing of the writ application by order dated-07.06.2001,
this Court had directed the Respondents-University to take a decision with regard to
pay-fixation of the petitioner and the petitioner had undertook to abide by the
decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. In compliance with the order of the Court,
the Pay-Fixation Committee was constituted and at its meeting held on 04.09.2002, it
was decided that the petitioner, who was granted promotion to the post of the
Routine Clerk, was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/-. In accordance with the
recommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee, the Respondent-University issued
a Notification on 28.05.2002, fixing the pay of the petitioner in terms of the
recommendations of the Pay Fixation Committee.

Learned counsel further points out that after his retirement
from service, but prior to the date of recommendation of the Pay Fixation
Committee, the petitioner filed yet another writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 944 of
2006. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-
University to pay the petitioner the scale of Rs.1200-1800/- in terms of the
appointment letter. Such payment was however made subject to the final decision in
that regard by the Pay Fixation Committee.

As regards the petitioner’s claim for promotion from the
retrospective date i.e. 18.01.1989, it is explained that the earlier promotion given by
the Principal of the College was unauthorized and it was only provisional. The power
to grant promotion under the statute is vested only with the Vice-chancellor. The
petitioner’s provisional promotion was also withdrawn and he was reverted to the
post of Night Guard on and from 30.08.1991. It is also explained that when the
petitioner’s case was considered for his promotion, it was found that his performance
was not satisfactory and further, that he was suspended during the period 18.12.1980
to 22.03.1987 by the College. Show-cause notices were issued to him from time to
time against repeated acts of misconduct on his part and an enquiry was also
conducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer had found the charges against
the petitioner, proved.

Learned counsel explains that when the candidature of the
other candidates was considered and promotion was granted to them with effect from
18.01.1989, the petitioner’s candidature was also considered and his performance in
duty having not been found satisfactory, he was not found fit for promotion at that
time. It is further explained that subsequently when the petitioner’s case for
promotion was considered in the year 1992, the Respondents considering the
petitioner’s educational qualifications and other factors/criterias, had granted him
promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the notified date of the
year 1993.

Learned counsel submits further, that in the several writ
applications, which the petitioner had filed earlier, the petitioner had never raised
any issue regarding the grant of his promotion from the year 1993 and it is only after
about ten years from the date of Notification for his promotion, that for the first time,
he has filed this writ application containing the aforesaid prayer for promotion with
effect from the retrospective date. Learned counsel submits that the prayer of the
petitioner for grant of promotion with effect from 18.01.1989 is liable to be rejected
on this ground alone.

6. As it appears from the rival submissions and the pleadings of the
parties, the petitioner’s case for his promotion was considered along with similarly
situated other candidates in the year 1989. The petitioner was not found fit for
promotion on account of his unsatisfactory performance of service. It is not denied
by the petitioner that on the charges of several acts of misconduct, he was put under
suspension and a departmental proceeding was also conducted against him. The
petitioner cannot claim that despite adverse remarks in respect of his performance of
duties, he was entitled to promotion as a matter of right from the date when the
others were granted such promotions. It is not a case where the petitioner’s
candidature for promotion was not considered at all at the time when the cases of
other candidates whose names were considered and recommended for promotion.

7. As pointed out by the Respondents, the promotion, which was earlier
granted, though provisionally, by the Principal of the College, was not valid in view
of the fact that the Principal of the College was not authorized under the statute to
grant promotion to the Class IV employees to Class III posts. The approval to such
provisional promotion having not been given by the University, the petitioner cannot
claim any right or benefit on the ground that the Principal had granted him

8. The petitioner’s claim for fixation of his salary on the scale of
Rs.1500-2750/- is also not tenable. This is because, admittedly, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Routine Clerk, for which the requisite educational
qualification, was matriculation. Merely because the petitioner being designated as a
Routine Clerk, he cannot equate himself with the regular Clerks for whose
appointment, the requisite qualification is Graduation. The scales, as per the
recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee for Routine Clerks, has been fixed
separately, whereas the scales at a higher rate have been separately fixed for the
regular Clerks. The petitioner therefore, cannot claim the benefit of such higher
scales as extended to the regular clerks.

As appearing from the order passed in the earlier writ
application, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1174 of 1999 (R), the Respondent-University was
directed to pay the scale of Rs.1200-1800/- in terms of the appointment letter issued
to the petitioner but such payment was made subject to the final decision of the Pay
Fixation Committee. The petitioner had undertaken in the aforesaid writ application
to abide by the decision of the Pay Fixation Committee. The petitioner cannot,
therefore, resile from his own undertaking from abiding with the decision of the Pay
Fixation Committee.

9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, the
petitioner had though filed several writ applications before this Court claiming one
or the other reliefs, but despite the fact that against the Notification by which he was
granted promotion to the post of the Routine Clerk with effect from the year 1993, he
had never raised any grievance against the date when such promotion was made
effective, in any of the earlier writ applications. It also appears that such grievance
has now been raised by the petitioner after more than ten years from the date of the
Notification of his promotion. The petitioner, thus appears to have suffered lapses
and latches on his own account.

10. In the light of the above discussions, I find that the petitioner has not
made out any grounds for grant of the reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly, this writ
application is dismissed at the stage of admission.

(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *