2026:JHHC:25869 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4765 of 2026 --------- 1. Dr Prabhas Chandra Thakur @ P.C. Thakur, aged about 65 years, S/o late Krishnadeo Narayan Thakur, R/o Sector 4/D, Q. No. 2297, PO & PS Sector 4, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1) State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojna Bhawan Nepal House, P.O.- Doranda and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi,Jharkhand, 834002. 2) The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, 3rd Floor, Yojna Bhawan Nepal House, P.O.- Doranda and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi,Jharkhand, 834002 3) Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University through its Registrar, Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130. 4) The Vice Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, Distrtict Dhnabad, Jharkhand, 828130. 5) The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II Mr. Anoop Kumar, Adv. --------- 02/Dated: 20.08.2026 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction upon the Respondents to grant the benefit of two (2) PhD increments to the Petitioner, and accordingly, fix the pay of the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) as per the UGC 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Scale, and consequently, pay arrears of salary, and other consequential benefits accruing thereof. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 2026:JHHC:25869 2 submits that the issue of increment involved in this writ application has been set at rest by this Court in the case of W.P.(S) No.5455 of 2023 with analogous cases, wherein this Court has held as under: “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 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 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 2026:JHHC:25869 3 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.” 3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner and also not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the issue involved in this writ application is same and similar and further the State has challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this Court, however, the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation, but the fact remains that thereafter, they have not filed any further application as per their information. 4. Having regard to the above, this application stand allowed on the same finding what has been given by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5455 of 2023 and other analogous cases, whereby, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside and the respondents were directed to give increment to the respective petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) AUGUST 20, 2026 fahim/- uploaded01 01/09/2026