( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 5388 of 2024 ---- Jata Shankar Singh, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Marsa Ram Singh, Resident of near Old Sai Mandir, Barganda, P.O-Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih/Jharkhand, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O-Doranda and P.S Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .....Respondents With W.P(S). No. 5585 of 2024 ---- Usha Singh aged about 71 years, daughter of Dr. R.P Sinha resident of house No. 90, Bank colony Mission School road P.S Sadar, P.O Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O-Doranda and P.S Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .....Respondents With W.P(S). No. 5847 of 2024 ---- Ajit Kumar Pathak, aged about 67 years, son of Late Krishna Kumar Pathak, resident of Imli Kothi, Barka Gaon Road, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O-Doranda and P.S Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh Jharkhand, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, 4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O Hazaribagh, P.S Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Aurn, Advocate : Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Singh, Advocate : Ms. Ayushi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Namita Sahay, Advocate : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V --- 03/ Dated: 23.06.2026 Since the issue involved in all these three applications are same and similar and facts are also inter-connected, accordingly, with the consent of the parties, all these writ applications are being disposed of by this common order. For brevity, the prayer made in the respective writ petitions are mentioned hereinbelow: WP(S) No. 5388 of 2024 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s):- i. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of part of Letter dated 15.09.2022, especially note part as contained in Annexure-2, by which the pay scale of the Petitioner has been fixed at Rs.12,000 in place of Rs 14,940 and further it has stated that the increment will be given to the lecturer only. ii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Letter dated 08.09.2023, as contained in ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) Annexure-6 as by Executive order section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended. iii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix pay scale of the Petitioner in the terms of letter dated 30.11.2004 & 30.05.2005 and fix the same in basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 and pay arrears thereof. iv. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the act of the authority as bad in law, as section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended by executive order and moreover wrong fixation has been done without giving any show cause to the Petitioner, no opportunity has been given for being heard before issuance of impugned order. v. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to fix the basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 on completion of 5 years as a Reader and being having PhD and also declare the fixation is wrong as Rs 3625 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which replacement scale is Rs 12000 in place of Rs 14940. WP(S) No. 5585 of 2024 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s):- i. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of part of Letter dated 16.06.2022, especially note part as contained in Annexure-2, by which the pay scale of the Petitioner has been fixed at Rs.12,000 in place of Rs 14,940 and further it has stated that the increment will be given to the lecturer only. ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) ii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Letter dated 08.09.2023, as contained in Annexure- 6 as by Executive order section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended. iii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix pay scale of the Petitioner in the terms of letter dated 30.11.2004 & 30.05.2005 and fix the same in basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 and pay arrears thereof. iv. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the act of the authority as bad in law, as section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended by executive order and moreover wrong fixation has been done without giving any show cause to the Petitioner, no opportunity has been given for being heard before issuance of impugned order. v. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to fix the basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 on completion of 5 years as a Reader and being having PhD and also declare the fixation is wrong as Rs 3625 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which replacement scale is Rs 12000 in place of Rs 14940. WP(S) No. 5847 of 2024 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief(s):- i. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of part of Letter dated 13.06.2022, with its enclosure where the pay has been fixed wrongly, especially note part as contained in Annexure-2, by which the pay scale of the Petitioner has been fixed at Rs.12,000 in ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) place of Rs 14,940 and further it has stated that the increment will be given to the lecturer only. ii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Letter dated 08.09.2023, as contained in Annexure- 6 as by Executive order section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended. iii. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix pay scale of the Petitioner in the terms of letter dated 30.11.2004 & 30.05.2005 and fix the same in basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 and pay arrears thereof. iv. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the act of the authority as bad in law, as section 2(v) of University Act cannot be amended by executive order and moreover wrong fixation has been done without giving any show cause to the Petitioner, no opportunity has been given for being heard before issuance of impugned order. v. For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to fix the basic pay scale of Rs 14,940 on completion of 5 years as a Reader and being having PhD and also declare the fixation is wrong as Rs 3625 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which replacement scale is Rs 12000 in place of Rs 14940. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in these writ applications is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 5455 of 2023, wherein this Court has dealt the issue in detail, as such, similar benefit may be granted to the above petitioners. ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) 3. Learned counsel for the State and the University does not oppose the aforesaid contention and submits that all these cases are covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(S) No. 5455 of 2023. 4. Having regard to the above submissions and after going through the facts and prayer made in all these applications, it appears that the prayer of increment/ pay-scale raised by the respective petitioners in their respective writ-applications have been dealt in detail in the above referred case. 5. For brevity, para-6 to para-9 of W.P(S) No. 5455 of 2023 are extracted herein below:- “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits especially Annexure-5,6,11&15 in W.P.S No.5455/23, W.P.S No.5789/23, W.P.S No.7396/23, it appears that after the appeal preferred by the State was allowed and two scale of Reader was set aside; thereafter, the respondents came with provisional pay fixation of teachers in several colleges in which at the bottom it has been indicated as "Note-PhD increments will be applicable only for Lecturer/Assistant Professor" which has directly affected the pay scale of these petitioners who are readers. It has been stated that PhD increment is admissible to the Lecturer only. In this regard it is necessary to indicate that Section 2(V) defines Teacher as Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, and other person imparting instruction in Department, College or Institute maintained by the State. It further transpires from the Statute No.1 which is the general condition of the service, wherein Section 22(1) stipulates that the increment can be withheld as measures of punishment; otherwise entitles as a matter of course. At this stage it is also pertinent to mention ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) that no notice was ever served to the respective petitioners before taking the decision. 7. It has been admitted by both the parties that statute no.22, 4th UGC pay scale has been adopted by State by virtue of appendix-1 Clause (11). Further 5th UGC scale has been adopted by the State and Clause 6 speaks about incentive for PhD/M. Phil qualification. Therefore, when Section 2(V) of the University Act itself says that Teacher means Reader also then simply by an executive order Section 2(V) of the University Act cannot be amended. In this regard it would be profitable to refer the judgment in the case of K. Kuppusamy & Anr. Vs. State of T. N. and others reported in (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 469 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that Rule framed cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. For brevity para-3 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: 3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies, Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule. 8. The law is now no more res-integra that administrative instructions/circular/orders cannot override statutory rules. The note part in Annexure-5 & 6 referred to hereinabove indicates that PhD increment is admissible to Lecturer only which is against Section 2(V) of the University Act and as stated ( 2026:JHHC:18961 ) hereinabove the statute cannot amend by an executive order and accordingly Section 2(V) of the University Act cannot be amended by executive Act, even the increment payable to employees under the provisions of article 22 of the Statutes, framed under the provision of the University Act and approved by the Chancellor, and according to the said Article, increment is payable to the University servant as a matter of course, unless it is withheld by the authority empowered to appoint him, as a measure of punishment, on this ground also order impugned is bad in law. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the note part indicated in Annexure-5 & 6 of W.P.(S) No.5455 of 2023, W.P.(S) No.5789 of 2023, W.P.(S) No.7396 of 2023 and also Annexure- 11& 15 in respective Interlocutory Application wherein it has been stated that PhD increment is admissible to the Lecturer only, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 6. Since the issue has already been decided which has been admitted by the respective respondents; as such, all these writ applications stands allowed. 7. Accordingly, part of Letter dated 15.09.2022 and 08.09.2023 in WP(S) No. 5388 of 2024; part of Letter dated 16.06.2022 and 08.09.2023 in WP(S) No. 5585 of 2024 and part of Letter dated 13.06.2022 and 08.09.2023 in W.P(S) No. 5847 of 2024, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 8. As a result thereof, consequential benefits along with arrears shall be extended to the respective petitioners, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 23.06.2026 (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/-