Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Binod Kumar Rai, aged about 58, resident of Baddiha, Mirzaganj, Jamua, Giridih, Jharkhand.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Jharkhand, Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher & Technical Education; (2) Vinoba Bhave University, represented by its Vice‑Chancellor, Registrar; (3) Langta Baba College, represented by its Secretary (Ad‑hoc Governing Body) and Principal.
  • Counsel: Petitioner's advocates – Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia and Mr. Anish Lal; Respondent‑State – Mr. Anil Kr. Singh; University – Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh; College – Mr. A.K. Sahani.
  • CAV on 03‑07‑2026, pronounced on 10‑07‑2026.
  • Reliefs sought: (i) Quash Memo No. 1140 dated 05‑04‑2019 which reinstated the petitioner as Lecturer but omitted arrears, seniority and pay‑scale; (ii) Direct the University and College to pay salary at the same pay‑scale as similarly situated Lecturers; (iii) Quash observations in the same memo that disqualified the petitioner from being appointed Principal In‑charge.
  • Background: Appointed Lecturer (Political Science) on 21‑12‑1989; later made In‑charge Principal. After the death of Founder Secretary, an Ad‑hoc Committee was formed on 21‑02‑2002. The Committee removed him on 02‑09‑2002, leading to a series of writ petitions (2002‑2023) and a Letters Patent Appeal. Multiple orders directed the Vice‑Chancellor to investigate seniority and suitability; a Three‑Man Committee found no proof of charges. Nevertheless, the Governing Body terminated his service on 03‑11‑2008 without departmental proceedings.
  • The Vice‑Chancellor’s order dated 05‑04‑2019 declared the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement as Lecturer, and allowed fresh departmental proceedings, but omitted any direction on back wages and recorded a prejudicial observation that the petitioner lacked the quality to be Principal.
  • The petitioner contended that he was forced to work as a contractual para‑teacher (honourarium Rs 8,945 per month) from 03‑03‑2010 to 02‑08‑2019, received an advance of Rs 51,000 on 21‑01‑2020 and Rs 5,000 as salary advance, and that his pay‑scale was fixed only from 02‑08‑2019, resulting in discrimination.
  • Respondents argued that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages, that he had not replied to show‑cause notices, and that his salary was already on par with other Lecturers.
  • The Court examined the record, noted the Three‑Man Committee’s finding of no proved allegations, the illegal termination without departmental inquiry, and the contradictory stance of the Vice‑Chancellor.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 05‑04‑2019 is quashed to the extent it contains observations prejudicial to the petitioner’s interest.
  • The petitioner is entitled to 75 % of back wages from the date of termination (03‑11‑2008) to the date of reinstatement/joining (02‑08‑2019), after deducting the honourarium received during his para‑teacher contract (03‑03‑2010 to 02‑08‑2019).
  • Respondents must recompute the petitioner’s pay‑scale, taking into account his original appointment date (21‑12‑1989) and grant all increments and consequential revisions applicable to similarly situated Lecturers.
  • The recomputed salary and arrears must be paid within 12 weeks of receipt/production of this order.
  • If arrears are not paid within the stipulated period, the petitioner will be entitled to simple interest at 6 % per annum from the date of this judgment until full payment.
  • The Court reiterates that the petitioner cannot be discriminated in salary compared to other Lecturers; the pay‑scale fixed from 02‑08‑2019 is insufficient and must reflect his seniority.
  • All pending interlocutory applications are dismissed; no order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Remedy, Employment Rights, Higher Education