( 2026:JHHC:29965 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 7780 of 2026 ---- 1. Nivedita Choudhary aged about 67 years, wife of late S.S. Chaudhary,resident of flat no.201, Sukmani Apartment, New Barganda, Gridhih P.O.& P.S- Barganda, District - Gridhih, Jharkhand. 2. Madhusree Sen Sanyal aged about 65 years, wife of Dr. S. Sanyal, resident of Sursaptak, Sir J.C. Bose Road, New Barganda, Gridhih P.O.& P.S-Barganda, District - Gridhih, Jharkhand. …..Petitioners 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, Dist. Hazaribagh/ Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh/ Jharkhand …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Singh, Advocate : Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate : Mr. Ayushi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Anand, AC to SC-VI : Mr Amaresh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Riya Raj, Advocate : Mr. Namita Sahay, Advocate --- 05/ Dated: 05.10.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s), including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents to refix the pay of the petitioners at ₹14,940/- in place of 12,000/- by granting the benefit of the Ph.D. increment, which has been curtailed behind the back of the petitioners on the erroneous ground that such increment is admissible only to Lecturers, although the said ( 2026:JHHC:29965 ) issue has already been set at rest by this Hon'ble Court in view of Section 2(v) of the University Act read with the Government letters dated 30.11.2004 and 30.05.2005, and consequently to extend to the petitioners the same benefits as have been granted by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 5455 of 2023 vide order dated 05.08.2024, W.P.(S) No. 5388 of 2024 vide order dated 23.06.2026, and other analogous cases. b) 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. c) 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. d) 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.” 3. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 6731 of 2024 along with analogous cases. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similar matter was also heard and allowed in favour of the respective petitioners (W.P.S No. 5455 of 2023) which was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.08.2026 in LPA No. 544 of 2025 with L.P.A No. 555 of 2025. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that similar benefits may be granted to this petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since no counter- affidavit has been filed, however, learned counsel for the University/State could not dispute the fact that the issue involved in this writ application is same and similar with that of above referred cases. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made at bar, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No.4 to verify ( 2026:JHHC:29965 ) the records of the case and if the case of the petitioners are same and similar with that of the above referred case similar benefits may be granted to this petitioners. Respondent no.4 shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations and thereafter, he shall forward the recommendation/order to respondent no.2 within 6 weeks, who shall after verification of the documents shall pass the necessary order within a further period of 4 weeks and thereafter, the consequential benefits may be extended to the petitioner within a further period of 2 weeks. The petitioner may serve a copy of this writ application along with the relevant documents to the concerned respondent for convenience. 6. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 05.10.2026 Abha/-