2026:JHHC:25871 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3523 of 2022 --------- 1. Prashant Kumar Mishra, aged about 66 years, Son of Late K.P. Mishra, Resident of Flat No.201-A, Shaivya Apartment, Lake Road, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Jharkhand. Hazaribagh/ 2. Dr. Madan Mohan Pathak, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Nageshwar Pathak, Resident of Om Sai Enclave, Matwari Road, Near Hirabagh Chowk, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. 3. Dr. Tarakant Shukla, aged about 66 years, Son of Triguna Nand Shukla, Resident of Flat No.301/B, Shanya Apartment, Zheel Road, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Jharkhand. Hazaribagh 4. Ajay Kumar Sharma, aged about 65 years Son of Late B.D. Shastri, Resident of Near Ram Nagar Mala, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. -Hazaribagh/ Jharkhand 5. Prakash Kumar, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Bihari Prasad Bhagat, Resident of New Colony (Behind Police Station), Holding No.427, P.O.- Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.- Jhumri Telaiya, Dist.- Koderma/Jharkhand. 6. Sajal Mukherjee, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Dr. P.S Mukherjee, Resident of Boddom Bazar, Malaviya Road, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.- Hazaribagh / Jharkhand. 7. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, aged about 67 years, Son of Sri Ram Bilas Singh, resident of Mandir Gali, Old Fire Brigade, Hazaribagh, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.- Sadar, District - Hazaribagh Jharkhand. 8. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Daya Shankar Prasad, Resident of Nagendra Tower Flat No. 302, P.O.- ISM Campus, Dhanbad, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad/Jharkhand. 9. Parmeshwar Mahto, aged about 67 years, Son of Late Pela Ram Mahto, Resident of Bihind Mohan Petrol Pump, G.T. Road, Govindpur, P.O.- Govindpur, P.S.- Govindpur, District - Dhanbad/Jharkhand. 10. Dr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, aged about 65 years, Son of Late Muneshwar Prasad, Resident of Opp. Forester's Training School, Canary Hill Road, Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh / Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1) State of Jharkhand. 2) Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education, Government 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, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 4) The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ....Respondent(s) 2026:JHHC:25871 2 --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC( M)-II Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Adv. --------- 12/Dated: 20.08.2026 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following relief:- a) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing part of letter dated 10.06.2022 (ANNEXURE-5) especially Clause 2 wherein order of recovery has been passed without considering the fact that the petitioners have been given the pay scale which include increment in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- replacement scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300/-therefore no wrong has been done; b) 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; c) 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 petitioners 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 for completion of 5 years of service as Reader as they do not fall within the definition of "Teacher which is against 2026:JHHC:25871 3 the Act of 2000 itself, d) 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 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; e) 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. 14,490/-; f) petitioners further pray 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, Amended reliefs: g) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 20.07.2022 (ANNEXURE-11 series) wherein order of recovery for respective petitioners has been passed. h) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 08.09.2023 (ANNEXURE-15) wherein it has been stated that the increment will be given to Lecturer only and "Teacher includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instructions in the department, college, institute maintained by the 2026:JHHC:25871 4 University" wherein the petitioners are Reader and on account of PhD holder they have got the 2 increments but by said executive order Section 2(V) of university Act 2000, has been amended. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 2026:JHHC:25871 5 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.” 3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioners 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, part of letter dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure- 5), letter dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure-15 and letter dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-11 series) are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the 2026:JHHC:25871 6 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