2026:JHHC:25868 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4103 of 2023 --------- 1. Dr. Meena Srivastava, aged about 67 years, D/o late Jagdish Prasad, R/o MIG 28/A, Housing Colony, Bartand, PO & PS Dhanabad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. Dr. Swapna Kundu @ S. kundu, aged about 68 years, W/o Nukul Hazra, R/o Block A 1, 5th floor, Prabha Apartment, L.C. Road, PO & PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, 3. Dr Vijay Kumar, aged about 69 years, S/o late Sharda Sharma, R/o Preet Vihar Colony, J.C. Malbek Road, PO & PS Hirapur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Dr. Ramji Singh Yadav, aged about 68 years, S/o late Sadhu Singh Yadav, R/o Flat No. 504, Pragati Enclave, JC Malick Road, PO & PS Hirapur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. Dr. Naresh Kumar Ambastha, aged about 68 years, S/o late Chhedi Lal, R/o HIG 29, Self Finance Scheme, Housing Colony, PO & PS Bartand, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 6. Dr. Gulab Chandra Prasad, aged about 68 years, S/o late Rupan Prasad, R/o Nutandih, Near Central Hospital, PO & PS Jagivan Nagar, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 7. Dr. Narayan Mahto, aged about 69 years, S/o late Shambhu Nath Mahto, R/o 3F, Jamuna Block, Dinanath Enclave, PO & PS Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 8. Dr. Madhurima Singh, aged about 69 years, W/o Suresh Chandra Rai, R/o Professor’s Colony, Maithan Dam, P.O & PS Maithan District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1) State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834004. 2) 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. 3) 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 4) Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University through its Registrar, Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130. 5) The Vice Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, Distrtict Dhnabad, Jharkhand, 828130. 6) The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Government Polytechnic Road, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, 828130. ....Respondent(s) With W.P. (S) No. 4923 of 2023 2026:JHHC:25868 2 --------- Debjani Biswas, aged about 65 years, Daughter of Late Anil Kumar Biswas, Resident of Manoram Nagar, Lubi, Circular Road, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. -Dhanbad and District - Dhanbad / Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto Koyalanchal University, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koyalanchal University, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-I Mr. Anoop Kumar, Adv. --------- 07/Dated: 20.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Since both these cases involve same and similar issue; as such, with consent of all the parties, both these cases are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ application being W.P. (S) No. 4103 of 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction upon the Respondents for quashing of the letter (no. 959/2023) dated 24.05.2023 [Annexure 13] by the Registrar, B.B.M.K.U to the Petitioners, wherein the Petitioners have been informed that recovery will made from the pension of the Petitioners in monthly installments. b) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction upon the Respondents for quashing of the letter nos. 884/2023, 885/2023, 887/2023, 888/2023, 889/2023, 890/2023, 891/2023, all dated 16.05.2023 [Annexure 12 (Series)), wherein the Petitioner Nos 2026:JHHC:25868 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 have been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,32,643, Rs. 7,49,679, Rs. 5,00,563, Rs. 5,00,563, Rs. 5,00,563, Rs. 6,29,783, Rs. 5,33,620, Rs. 6,74,551 respectively to the Registrar, B.B.M.K.U. c) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction upon the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioners as Rs. 14,940 in the 5th Revised the date of Pay Scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300 on completion of 5 years of service as Reader, and consequently pay arrears of salary to the Petitioners. d) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction upon the Respondents to grant 2 Ph.D. increments to the Petitioners that has been illegally withdrawn vide letter dated 26.08.2022 [Annexure 8] and vide notification dated 08.09.2022 [Annexure 9]. 3. The writ application being W.P. (S) No. 4923 of 2022 has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (A) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to fix the pay scale of the petitioner in the pay scale of 3700 5700 with effect from 1.1.1996 replacement scale of Rs.12,000-18300 including the increments on account of being PhD holder; AND (B) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 8.9.2022 (ANNEXURE -6) by which the pay scale of the petitioner has wrongly been fixed at Rs.3625/- with effect from 1.1.1996 which does not include PhD increment nor it includes the increments on account of completion of 5 years as Reader and the scale comes to Rs.14,940/- which has been paid to the petitioner and in note portion it has been stated that the Readers are not entitled for PhD increments as it stated only lecturers are entitled without any reason when the time bound promotion scheme itself speaks for granting of increment, can the same be curtailed by executive or non est order; (C) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to recover the amount in question i.e. PhD Increment as well as increment on account of completion of 5 years of service as Reader; (D) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 adopted where the "Teacher includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instructions in the department, college, institute maintained by the University" wherein the Respondent / State is stating that the petitioners are not entitled for the PhD increment as well as completion of 5 years of service as Reader as they do not fall within the definition of 'Teacher' which is against the Act of 2000 itself; (E) for issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents not to recover or deduct the scale of the petitioner on account of 2026:JHHC:25868 4 2 increments given on account of PhD as well as increment on account of completion of 5 years' service as Reader in terms of the Statute and Circular issued time and again; (F) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to under what authority they have curtailed the amount of increment on account of PhD as well as increment on account of completion of 5 years of service as Reader as the petitioners are entitled for a basic scale of Rs.14,940/-; (G) For issuance of a writ(s)/orders (s) (/direction (s) or particularly writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 20.5.2023 by which order of recovery has been passed ex-parte in violation of principle of substantial natural justice and directed to recover in one installment to the tune of Rs.3.23,316; AND/OR (H) For issuance of a writ(s)/orders (s) (/direction (s) or particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondent not to give effect to 20.5.2023 until the matter is sub-judice no recovery should be made from leave encashment and operation of letter dated 20.05.2023 shall remain stayed. (I) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the -15 nature of certiorari for quashing letter dated 8.9.2023 (Annexure-16) to this application as same is illegal void and without jurisdiction as state government does not have power to change statute by way of executive order as statute never amended nor Hon'ble Chancellor issued letter for curtailment neither the ascent of by Hon'ble Court taken for curtailment by altering statute in terms of Section 36 read with Section 26 of UGC Act. (J) The petitioner further prays that till the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Court, no recovery should be made in terms of the direction given by this Hon'ble Court; 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the issue of increment involved in both these writ applications have 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 2026:JHHC:25868 5 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 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.” 5. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respective petitioners and also not disputed by learned counsel for the respective respondents that the issue involved in all these writ applications are 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 2026:JHHC:25868 6 the fact remains that thereafter, they have not filed any further application as per their information. 6. Having regard to the above, all these applications 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. 7. Accordingly, note part of all the respective impugned orders i.e., Letter No.959/2023 dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure-13), letters no.884/2023, 885/2023, 887/2023. 888/2023, 889/2023, 890/2023, 891/2023 all dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure 12 series), in W.P.(S) No.4103 of 2023 and letter dated 20.05.2023, letter dated 8.09.2023 (Annexure-15) in W.P.(S) No.4923 of 2022, are hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to all the respective petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Consequently, both these writ application stand allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) AUGUST 20, 2026 fahim/- uploaded 01/09/2026