2026:JHHC:18246 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1395 of 2024 ….….. Anjan Kumar Ghosh, aged about 81 years, son of Late Bhimal Chandra Ghosh, residing at 13/2, University Colony, Opposite Sai Hospital Bariatu, P.O.-Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Directorate of Education, Nepal House, P.O.-Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Director, Higher Technical Education & Skill Development Department, Directorate of Education, Nepal House, P.O.-Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. Ranchi University, through its Registrar, having office at P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Sr. Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Aman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-VI For the University : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate C.A.V. ON: 10/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 22/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing of letter No. 1799 dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Director, Higher Education (Annexure 10), whereby he has held that the post of Technical Superintending Engineer has not been sanctioned by the State Government and fixed the pay of the petitioner in the post of Electrician and also to quash letter No.2099 dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure 10/2), issued by 2026:JHHC:18246 2 Director, Higher Education, whereby the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to the scale of Rs.3050 – 4590 (Unrevised scale Rs.975 – 1540), with effect from 01.01.1996 and for issuance of further writ or the direction directing the respondents to rectify and fix pay scale of the petitioner inconformity with the recommendation made by the University vide Memo No. Esst/C/534/08 dated 12.04.2008 (Annexure 7), and to extend the benefits of 5th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.1996, and 6th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2006 along with all monetary benefits. Brief Facts & Contention of the petitioner 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of electrician on temporary basis in Ranchi University vide order of the Registrar as contained in Memo No. RC/107/P/12040-44 dated 01.03.1969 (Annexure 2). 4. Subsequently, when the regular post of Junior Technician felt vacant, an advertisement was issued on 12.01.1979 (Annexure 3). The petitioner applied against the said advertisement and on being selected, was appointed as a Junior Technician in the scale of Rs. 1500 – 2750 vide appointment letter dated 20th of March 1979 (Annexure 4). The petitioner continued in the said post and was granted Senior Selection Grade vide Notification dated 10th of May 1984. 5. The petitioner was promoted to the post Workshop 2026:JHHC:18246 3 Superintendent vide Notification as contained in Memo No. Estt/C/761-66 dated 23.02.2001 in the scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900 plus admissible allowances with effect from 04.05.2000 (Annexure 5/1). 6. The petitioner was granted 1st Time Bound Promotion vide Memorandum No. Estt/C/185-337 dated 21.02.2005 with effect from 01.04.1981 and 2nd Time Bound Promotion with effect from 14.03.1994. 7. The petitioner superannuated on 21.05.2003. After his retirement, the petitioner was getting pension in the scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite revision of pay in lieu of 5th Pay Revision and 6th Pay Revision, the benefits of pay revision were never extended to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1947 of 2019 seeking the benefits of pay revision. 9. It has been contended that this Court initially vide order dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure 9) expressed an anxiety as to why after 15 long-year of recommendation, the respondents-State had sought for certain documents and did not extend the benefit of pay revision, accordingly, directed the State as well as the University to file specific affidavits as to within what period the benefits shall be extended to the petitioner. The respondent- Deputy Director, Higher Education, thereafter vide letter dated 2026:JHHC:18246 4 14.08.2023 as contained in letter No. 1799 informed the Vice Chancellor that there is no post of Technical Superintendent (Electric) sanctioned by the State Government and accordingly returned the entire file concerning the recommendation of pay of the petitioner with a request to resend the proposal for fixation of the pay in the post of Electrician and subsequently, vide letter as contained in letter No. 2099 dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure 10/1), the Director, Higher Education, surprisingly reduced the pre-revised pay scale of the petitioner to Rs. 975 – 1540 and revised the pay scale of the petitioner to the scale of Rs. 3050 – 4590 with effect from 01.01.1996, which was the scale for the Electrician. When the writ application came up for final hearing, this Court by an order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure 1) observed that since the respondents-State has taken a decision and made fixation of pay scale of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3050 – 4590 with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post of Electrician, which he found to be not justified, the liberty was given to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse permissible under law. The petitioner accordingly in view of the liberty granted by this Court filed the instant writ petition challenging the letter dated 14.08.2023 as contained in letter No.1799 (Annexure 10) and the fixation of pay as contained in letter No. 2099 dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure 10/1). 10. It has been strenuously contended that the respondents 2026:JHHC:18246 5 are not justified in upsetting the pay scale of the petitioner that too after 20 years of his retirement and also prayed for pay revision benefits. He further relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Ratni Oraon and Another v. The State of Jharkhand and others (W.P. (S) No. 7818 of 2012). Stand of the University 11. The respondent no.4 – the Registrar of the Ranchi University, has filed a counter affidavit on 18.07.2024 wherein the respondent has admitted in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that vide notification bearing Memo No. Esstt/C/761-65 dated 23.05.2001, the University had fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 1640 – 2900 with effect from 04.05.2000 and also admitted in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that vide letter No. 12.04.2008, a recommendation was made for fixation of pay scale of the petitioner in implementation of 5th Pay Revision in the scale of Rs. 5500 – 5900 with effect from 01.01.1996. Contention of the State 12. The State Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein they have mainly pleaded in paragraph 9 that the University has sent the pay fixation proposal of the petitioner for the post of Technical Superintendent (Electric) and further stated in paragraph 10 that there is no such post sanctioned or created by the State Government and for which purpose, they 2026:JHHC:18246 6 have brought on record letter No. 1939 dated 05.09.2023. In paragraph 11, they have stated that therefore, the University has fixed the pay scale of the petitioner in the post of electrician. Analysis 13. Submissions made by the Respondent-State are wholly misconceived that the petitioner was never posted as Technical Electric Superintendent as has been stated by the respondents- State; rather, it will be apparent from bare perusal of Annexure 5/1 at page 42 of the writ application that the petitioner was posted as Workshop Superintendent in the Department of Physics in the pay scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900. The post of Workshop Superintendent is sanctioned and is a UGC recommended post which shall become apparent from bare perusal of Annexure 11/1 which gives the details of the additional posts which were directed to be created during 55 Plan Period by the Ranchi University wherein at Serial No. 21 against Central Workshop and Instrumentation Laboratory, the post of Workshop Superintendent has been mentioned. 14. Thus, apparently, the petitioner was allowed the post of Workshop Superintendent and not Technical Superintendent (Electric) and the State Government under a wrong impression has made the fixation of the pay scale of the petitioner in the scale of Electrician with effect from 01.01.1996, despite the fact that the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Junior 2026:JHHC:18246 7 Technician far back on 20th March 1979 vide Annexure 4 at page 40 of the writ application and subsequently posted as Workshop Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900 with effect from 04.05.2000 vide Memo No. Estt/C/761-66 dated 23.02.2001 (Annexure 5/1 at Page 42) and in this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to replacement scale of Junior Technician i.e. Rs. 5500 – 9000 (pre-revised scale Rs. 1500 – 2750) with effect from 01.01.1996 and subsequently entitled to replacement scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900 with effect from 04.05.2000 and further replacement scale as per the 6th Pay Revision of the said scale with effect from 01.01.2006 on implementation of the 6th Pay Revision. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the respondents are not justified in disturbing the pay scale of the petitioner that too after 20 years of his retirement. In the case of Ratni Oraon and Another v. The State of Jharkhand and others (Supra) it is been held as under:- “8. On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, I find that the only ground taken for denying the claim made by the petitioners in the present proceeding is that, the deceased employee was not appointed on sanctioned post. It is not denied that the original petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon on 28.06.1978. The husband of petitioner no.1 continued in service for about 33 years. He was paid salary, allowance, etc. regularly and at no point in time, any objection was raised by the respondent-State to the appointment of the husband of petitioner no. 1. It further appears that the pay-scale of the deceased employee was revised on account of recommendation of the 5th pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996 and he was paid increments also. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners for grant of family pension cannot be denied on such ground. The husband of petitioner no. 1 continued to work for about 33 years. The grant of pension is recognition of the service rendered by an employee during the fruitful years of his service and it has been held that 2026:JHHC:18246 8 the pension is not charity or bounty but it is a statutory right of an employee. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that in so far as, the grant of family pension to petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the stand taken by the respondent no. 2 is liable to be rejected and respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate order for release of grant of family pension and release of funds on account of family pension to petitioner no. 1. However, in so far as, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the respondents are directed to take a decision in view of the prevalent Circular/Guidelines within a period of eight weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 16. The said judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 351 of 2014 by an order dated 20.01.2016 and subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24661 of 2016. This judgment was also relied by this Court in another case i.e. W.P. (S) No. 5240 of 2021 (Phul Chandra Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand and others), wherein this Court held as under:- “8. Moreover during the entire service period of the petitioner, the respondent state has never raised any objection with regard to the appointment of the petitioner and it was only raised at the time of approval of pay fixation of the petitioner which is after a lapse of almost 13 years of his retirement which is not justified in the eyes of law and also the same issue has been set at rest by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ratni Oraon (supra) which has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 24661 of 2016, wherein it has been held that when during the entire service period of an employee no objection with regard to the appointment was raised; then it is not open for the respondent to raise the issue of appointment after his retirement/death. 9. It is also noted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 by the Governing body of the College and in view of Annexure-8 which has been relied upon by the petitioner it was declared that all the appointment made prior to 1976 shall be deemed to be on sanctioned post and since the petitioner was admittedly appointed prior to 1976; therefore, the appointment of the petitioner should not have been questioned. 10. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid findings the impugned order passed vide memo no. 904 dated 03.05.2019, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent state is directed to approve the pay fixation of the petitioner as sent by the university within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Thereafter, the University after receiving such approval shall take steps with regard to revision of pension and gratuity of the petitioner and is further directed to release all arrears with regard to petitioner pursuant to such revision of the pay. The entire exercise shall be completed by the University within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt the order by the State Government.” 2026:JHHC:18246 9 17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and discussions, the impugned orders as contained in letter no. 1799 dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure 10) and letter No. 2099 dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure 10/1 and Annexure-10/2), are liable to be, and, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 18. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire benefits of 5th Pay Revision in the scale of Rs. 5500 – 9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and subsequently the replacement scale of Rs. 1640 – 60 – 2600 – 75 – 2900 with effect from 04.05.2000 and further replacement scale as per the 6th Pay Revision of the said scale with effect from 01.01.2006 on implementation of the 6th Pay Revision. 19. The respective respondents are directed to calculate the entire retiral dues and pension in accordance thereof and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 20. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:22 /06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 25.06.2026