In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed a state government order rejecting the pay fixation and pension revision of Phul Chandra Thakur, a retired employee of S.P. College, Dumka. Justice Deepak Roshan, presiding over the matter in W.P.(S) No. 5240 of 2021, criticized the state for challenging the employee’s appointment decades after his retirement, deeming it legally untenable. The court directed the state to approve the petitioner’s pay revision and process his pension and arrears within a stipulated time.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Phul Chandra Thakur, aged 75, retired as a typist from S.P. College, Dumka, in 2006 after 31 years of service. Following his retirement, Thakur’s salary and pension were not revised according to the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations, despite his eligibility. His pay was last revised in 1981 under the 4th Pay Commission.
Thakur had previously approached the court in W.P.(S) No. 1786 of 2015, which directed the respondent authorities to reconsider his request for pay fixation. However, his claim was rejected again in 2019 by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, citing the absence of a sanctioned post for typists at the time of his appointment.
Key Legal Issues
1. Legality of Appointment Post-Retirement: The state government raised objections to Thakur’s original appointment as a typist in 1975, asserting that the post was never sanctioned. The court examined whether such a challenge could be made after the employee’s retirement.
2. Adjustment of Position: Thakur’s appointment as a typist was adjusted to the post of Library Assistant during his tenure, as there was no sanctioned post for a typist in S.P. College. The legality of this adjustment also came under scrutiny.
3. Delay in Revising Pay Scale: The case also dealt with whether the petitioner’s pay fixation could be rejected after 13 years of retirement, especially when no objections were raised during his employment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s Argument:
Thakur’s counsel, Mr. Subham Mishra, argued that the state’s challenge to his appointment was baseless, as no objections were raised during his 31-year tenure. He pointed to a university resolution indicating that all appointments before 1976, including his, were made on sanctioned posts. Mishra further contended that it was unlawful for the state to deny the petitioner his rightful pay revision and pension based on technicalities raised post-retirement.
The petitioner’s counsel also relied on the precedent set in Ratni Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, where the court ruled that objections to an employee’s appointment cannot be raised post-retirement if no such issue was raised during service.
State’s Argument:
Representing the state, Ms. Divyam, Assistant Counsel to SC-IV, argued that Thakur’s appointment was not valid as there was no sanctioned post of a typist at S.P. College. She referred to the findings of the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission, which scrutinized cases related to appointments and pay revisions in government colleges. The commission’s report rejected the absorption of staff into unsanctioned posts, thus justifying the state’s rejection of Thakur’s claim.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Deepak Roshan firmly ruled in favor of the petitioner. He observed that the state’s objection to the petitioner’s appointment was made 13 years after his retirement, which was not legally justified. Citing the precedent set in Ratni Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, the court noted, “When during the entire service period of an employee, no objection with regard to the appointment was raised, it is not open for the respondent to raise the issue of appointment after his retirement.”
The court further emphasized that Thakur’s appointment, made in 1975, was on a sanctioned post, as per the university’s 1976 resolution that declared all pre-1976 appointments valid. The court found no merit in the state’s reliance on the S.B. Sinha Commission’s report, as the commission dealt with inter-college transfers, which did not apply to Thakur’s case.
In its final directive, the court quashed the state’s order dated May 3, 2019, and ordered the immediate approval of Thakur’s pay fixation as per the university’s recommendation. It also directed the university to revise his pension and release all arrears within 12 weeks of receiving approval from the state.
Case Title: Phul Chandra Thakur vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(S) No. 5240 of 2021
