- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs : (i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to suitably modify the fixation of pay as per 5th Pay Revision Committee Report (5th PRC) applicable with effect from 01.01.1996 with respect to the petitioner by treating the effective date, the date of joining, being 01.02.1980 and not 01.08.1993, as has been done by letter no. 5/B.374/20101284 dated 23.12.2011 issued under the pen and signature of the DeputySecretarytoGovernment,Department of Human Resources Development Higher Education). (ii) To hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for fixation of his revised pay and all admissible benefits w.e.f. the date of his joining i.e. 01.02.1980 inasmuch as the pay and other emoluments have been paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1980 and even the pay of the petitioner was revised w.e.f. 01.01.1981 in the pay scale of 580765 treating the date of joining/appointment of the petitioner on 01.02.1980. (iii) To hold and declare that fixation of pay of the petitioner in 5th revised pay scale treating the date of joining of the petitioner as on 01.08.1993 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as similarly situated persons like Sri Munna Singh and Sri P. Thakur of the same B.S.K. College have been given all benefits (including fixation of 5th pay revision) w.e.f. date of their joining i.e. 22.01.1979 and 16.01.1978 respectively instead of 01.08.1993 whereas this principle has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. (iv) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(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: 9. "That it is stated that the petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post. So his initial appointment was not valid and legal. 10. That it is stated that the petitioner was absorbed against the posts sanctioned/created by Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar vide its letter no. 1153 dated 20.08.1993. The posts were created in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 409/91. It has been clearly stipulated in the said letter dated 20.08.1993 that these posts are being sanctioned only for the absorption of the petitioners of the case. 11. That it is stated that the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 01.08.93 by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh vide its office order memo no. 2378 dated 14/16.03.1994 (Annexure 8 of the writ petition) in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 409/91 and contempt petition no. 280 and 404/1993. 26. That with regard to the statements made in para19 and 31 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that on the basis of the shifting of date of appointment of Sri Munna Singh, the pay fixation, has not been approved by the respondent stated.";