Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13841 (JHR)

TRIWENI SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HIGHER, TECHNICAL EDUCATION

WPC/3293/2025 · 2025-08-08

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:22810 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3293 of 2025 ------ 1. Triweni Singh, S/o Late Manbhran Singh, R/o Panchayat Amabatand, block Dhanwar, Village Jeruadih, P.O. Ambatand, P.S. Dhanwar, District Giridih, Jharkhand. 2. Mundrika Devi, W/o Late Tikait Narayan Singh, R/o Village Barwadih, P.O. Mandro, P.S. Deori, District Giridih, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Vinoba Bhave University, through the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Office at Vinoba Bhave University Road, Sindoor, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Office at Vinoba Bhave University Road, Sindoor, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 5. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Office at Vinoba Bhave University Road, Sindoor, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhneet Jha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arpit Sinha, Advocate ------ 04/ 08.08.2025 Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary as per the 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Revision Commission in the Pay-Scale of Rs.12000-420-18300. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the issue is no longer res integra and has already been decided by this Court and affirmed 2025:JHHC:22810 2 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court wherein the issue regarding two pay-scales of ‘Reader’ of the same post i.e. the ‘Reader’ has been struck down. It is also been submitted that the aforesaid judgments have already been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.11104/2020. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further submits that they are entitled to get the similar relief and the pay- scale as they have claimed. He submits that they have already filed a representation and suffice it would be if the representation of the petitioners be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that if the petitioners file their respective representation, their case will be considered and if it is found that the petitioners are entitled for any relief in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Court, appropriate order would be passed. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, I direct the petitioners to file detailed individual representation before the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh within a period of four weeks. Upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent - University will consider the claim of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are entitled for similar benefits as granted to Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors., pursuant to the order passed in LPA No.22/2018, the Registrar will pass an appropriate order and will communicate the same to the State. 7. The State thereafter will approve the pay-scales as recommended by the University and thereafter will disburse 2025:JHHC:22810 3 necessary fund to the University. The University in turn will disburse the same to the petitioners. 8. If any part of the claims of the petitioners is turned down either by the University or the State, the authority who is rejecting the claim should communicate the detailed reasons to the petitioners. 9. The entire process should be concluded within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of the representations filed by the petitioners. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2