2026:JHHC:20402

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 5091 of 2023

Binod Kumar Rai, aged about 58 years, son of Late Parmeshwari Rai,

resident of village Baddiha, P.O. Mirzaganj, P.S.Jamua, District Giridih,

Jharkhand. …… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,

Department of Higher & Technical Education, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,

P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

2. The Vinoba Bhave University, through its Vice-Chancellor,

Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.

3. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O.

and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.

4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O. and

P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.

5. Langta Baba College, through its Secretary, Ad-hoc Governing

Body, Baba Gram, P.O. Mirzaganj, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih.

6. The Principal, Langta Baba College, Baba Gram, P.O. Mirzaganj,

P.S. Jamua, District Giridih. …… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For Petitioner : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate

Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate

For Resp.-State : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I

For V.B. University : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

For Resp. College : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.

CAV on: 03.07. 2026 Pronounced on:10.07.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner filed the instant writ application for following

reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting

aside the order contained in Memo No. 1140 dated 05.04.2019 (Annexure-

12), wherein although the Petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in

service in the capacity of Lecturer, but, no further direction has been given

to make payment of the consequential benefits including arrears of salary,

seniority, etc. despite the fact that in the said impugned order, it has been

itself held that the Petitioner has been illegally terminated from service.

(ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction, including Writ of

Mandamus, directing the Respondent-University and Respondent-College to

pay salary of the Petitioner in the pay-scale which is being paid to similarly

situated Lecturers in Respondent No.-5 College, especially because

2026:JHHC:20402

2

Petitioner is the senior most Lecturer of the College including arrears of

salary for the period Petitioner was illegally not allowed to discharge his

duties.

(iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction for quashing/setting

aside the order contained in Memo No. 1140 dated 05.04.2019 to the extent

observations have been made in the said order against the Petitioner

disentitling the Petitioner for being appointed on the post of Principal In-

charge for Respondent-Langta Baba College.

3. The present case has got a chequered history, where Petitioner

has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for the 9

th

time. Facts

of the case are as under.

4. Petitioner, initially, being founder Member of Langta Baba

College, Baba Gram (for short ‘the College’) was appointed on the post

of Lecturer in Political Science vide Appointment Letter dated

21.12.1989. The said College is an affiliated College of Vinoba Bhave

University (a Deemed University).

5. Being the senior-most Lecturer of the College, Petitioner was

made In-charge Principal, and, after death of Founder Secretary of the

College namely, Shradha Nand Prasad, there was no Governing Body for

proper management of the College and, accordingly, Vinoba Bhave

University, vide its Notification dated 21.02.2002, constituted an Ad-hoc

Committee for the College for its governance.

6. It is the case of Petitioner that being Principal in-charge of the

College, he took steps for removal of irregularity/illegality prevailing in

the College which led to resentment against him, and, Ad-hoc

Committee vide its meeting dated 2

nd

September, 2002, removed the

Petitioner from the post of Principal-cum-Professor In-charge of the

College. Said decision was challenged by Petitioner by filing writ

2026:JHHC:20402

3

petition being W.P.(S) No. 5618 of 2002 (1

st

Petition), wherein this

Court, vide order dated 22.11.2002, directed the Vice-Chancellor of

Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to determine the question as to

who was the senior-most teacher of the College and who should be the

Professor In-charge of the College?

7. On 08.04.2003, Respondent-Vice Chancellor although

recognized that Petitioner was senior-most teacher of the College, but

still held that Petitioner was not entitled to be made Professor In charge

in view of allegations levelled by Ad-hoc Committee against him. In the

said order, Ad-hoc Committee itself was directed to investigate the

charges levelled against the Petitioner.

8. Petitioner, being aggrieved by aforesaid decision, approached

this Court by filing Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 2462 of 2003 (2

nd

Petition), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2004

and direction given to Ad-hoc Committee to investigate into the matter

was set aside and Respondent-Vice Chancellor was directed to determine

the issue as to whether charges against Petitioner levelled by Ad-hoc

Committee was correct or not. Consequent upon such order, admittedly

Three-Men Committee was constituted by Vice-Chancellor and

allegations levelled against Petitioner were not proved, but despite the

same, Vice Chancellor did not pass order for restoring the Petitioner to

his post of Professor In-charge, on the sole ground that the College was

only an affiliated unit of the University and Ad-hoc Committee is

competent authority to take decision on the charges levelled against the

2026:JHHC:20402

4

Petitioner. Said order was passed on 05.03.2005, which was challenged

in Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 2445 of 2005 (3

rd

Petition). However,

said writ petition was dismissed.

9. Petitioner, against the order of dismissal of the writ petition,

moved before Division Bench (4

th

Petition) and filed Letters Patent

Appeal being L.P.A. No. 491 of 2005. Said L.P.A. was disposed of vide

order dated 12.10.2006, wherein decision of Ld. Single Bench was set

aside and the Division Bench specifically noticed that in Three-Men

Committee, which was constituted by Respondent Vice-Chancellor,

allegations against Petitioner were not proved, but despite the same,

Vice-Chancellor did not take any decision on the issue as to who should

be Professor In-charge of the College in an erroneous manner, contrary

to earlier direction of this Court. Accordingly, Judgment of Ld. Single

Judge was set aside including decision of the Vice-Chancellor dated

05.03.2005 and the matter was remitted to the Vice Chancellor to decide

the issue as to who should be Professor In charge of the College in view

of report of the Three-Men Committee.

10. Despite the specific order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.

491 of 2005, Respondent Vice-Chancellor again passed order dated

18.01.2007, wherein it again did not consider the issue as to who should

be Professor In-charge of the College.

11. Under aforesaid circumstances, Petitioner filed another writ

petition being W.P.(S) No. 1888 of 2007 (i.e. 5

th

Petition) for quashing

the order of Vice Chancellor dated 19.01.2007. However, in the

2026:JHHC:20402

5

meantime, Respondent-College appointed one Arjun Prasad Rai as

regular Principal of the College and in view of said subsequent

development of fact, W.P.(S) No. 1888 of 2007 filed by Petitioner was

dismissed on 01.11.2007.

12. Thereafter, Petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice on

28.03.2008 asking the Petitioner to reply within a period of 24 hours and,

despite the fact that Petitioner sought for time, order dated 03.11.2008

was passed by Governing Body of the College terminating services of

Petitioner. Said order of termination from service was passed without

initiating any departmental proceeding and without any inquiry and/or

witness being examined, which compelled the Petitioner to file another

writ petition (6

th

Petition) being W.P.(S) No. 2730 of 2016. Although

said writ petition was filed with delay, explanation was given by

Petitioner for such delay that Governing Body itself was re-considering

the decision and even order was passed for taking back services of

Petitioner, but Petitioner was not allowed to join. Said Writ Petition

being W.P.(S) No. 2730 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court directing

the Petitioner to approach Vice Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University,

who was, in turn, directed to pass reasoned and speaking order. Said

order was not complied with, for which, Petitioner was compelled to file

contempt case i.e. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 357 of 2017 (7

th

Petition)

and during pendency of said contempt application, an order dated

23.05.2017 was passed by Respondent-Vice Chancellor, wherein

2026:JHHC:20402

6

Petitioner’s representation was rejected and decision of Governing Body

terminating service of Petitioner was upheld.

13. Petitioner against preferred writ application being W.P.(S) No.

4801 of 2017 (8

th

Petition) challenging the order dated 23.05.2017

passed by Vice Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University, and, in the said

writ application an order dated 24.10.2018 was passed wherein this

Court noted that disciplinary inquiry conducted against Petitioner was in

violation of the University Statute No.1 (General Conditions of Service)

approved on 18

th

November, 1980 which prescribed regular departmental

proceedings to be held before service of an employee can be terminated.

14. Petitioner, by virtue of the said order, was given liberty to

approach Respondent-Vice Chancellor by filing representation and,

accordingly, Petitioner filed such representation and the Vice-

Chancellor, vide order dated 05.04.2019, held that Petitioner’s service

has been illegally terminated, and, directed to reinstate the Petitioner in

service in the capacity of Lecturer and further gave liberty to start

departmental proceeding against Petitioner in accordance with law.

However, while passing said order, Vice-Chancellor did not pass any

order regarding arrears of salary for the petitioner during the period

Petitioner was forced to remain out of service, and, further, in the said

order, finding against Petitioner which is prejudicial to him, was

recorded and it was further recorded that Petitioner is not capable of

holding the post of Professor In charge of the College. It is against the

said portion of the order, present writ application has been filed.

2026:JHHC:20402

7

15. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner, Counsel for Respondent-

State and counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the College).

16. Counsel for Petitioner submitted that since Respondent-Vice

Chancellor itself, in its, order held that Petitioner’s services were

terminated in an illegal manner, it should have further ordered for

payment of back wages during the period of termination. It was further

submitted that although Petitioner has been reinstated in his service, but

he is being paid salary in basic pay-scale of Lecturer, whereas, other

similarly situated Lecturers working in the College are being paid salary

at higher pay-scale and, thus, Petitioner is being discriminated.

17. It was further submitted that from the facts of the present case,

it would be writ large that despite findings given by Three-Men

Committee, constituted by Vice Chancellor, that charges against

Petitioner were not proved, Petitioner’s services were illegally

terminated by Governing Body of the College, and, Respondent-Vice

Chancellor despite earlier order passed by this Court, especially the order

passed in L.P.A. No. 491 of 2005, has ignored the report of Three-Men

Committee and has made observations prejudicial to the interest of

Petitioner.

18. Per contra, Counsel for Respondent-University supported the

decision of Respondent-Vice Chancellor and submitted that observation

made in the impugned order is upon consideration of the documents

submitted by Governing Body of the College and Vice Chancellor has

2026:JHHC:20402

8

rightly held that Petitioner does not possess quality of being

Principal/Profession In-charge of the College.

19. Counsel for Respondent-State submitted that it is only a

formal party in present matter.

20. Counsel for Respondent-College vehemently opposed the

prayer made in the writ petition and contended that Petitioner is not

entitled for any back wages, as Petitioner, for the period from03.03.2010

to 2.08.2019 was working on the post of Para-teacher in upgraded

Middle School Buddiha and was drawing honorarium of Rs. 8,945/- per

month. It was further submitted that consequent upon order passed by

Vice Chancellor, the Governing Body of the College issued Show Cause

Notice to Petitioner on 05.09.2019, but, Petitioner did not reply to said

Show Cause Notice and even reminder in that regard was issued.

21. It was further submitted that due to indiscipline and ill

behavior of Petitioner with officers of Governing Body, the Governing

Body, in its meeting held on 31.01.2020, directed the Petitioner to

submit his Show Cause Reply, but till date, Petitioner has not responded.

22. With respect to claim of Petitioner regarding payment of

salary equivalent to salary being paid to other Lecturers, it was submitted

that Petitioner is being paid salary at par with the salary being paid to

other Lecturers.

23. Counsel for Petitioner referred to Rejoinder Affidavit filed by

Petitioner and specifically stated that Petitioner has never been paid

salary at par with the salary being paid to other Lecturers and, in fact, on

2026:JHHC:20402

9

21.01.2020, when Petitioner was compelled to sit over hunger strike, an

advance of Rs. 51,000/- was paid to Petitioner and, further, an amount of

Rs. 5000/- was paid as advance to his salary. Petitioner referred to

Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and

pointed out that aforesaid facts have been admitted by Respondents in

their Supplementary Counter Affidavit.

24. Further reference was made to Para-14 of Supplementary

Counter Affidavit wherein, Respondents have themselves admitted that

salary of Petitioner has been fixed from the date of joining i.e.

02.08.2019.

25. Having considered rival submissions of parties, this Court is of

the opinion that although facts of the present case, prima facie appear to

be complicated, but the issue raised is simple in nature.

26. Admittedly, pursuant to order passed by this Court, Vice

Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University constituted Three-Men

Committee to enquire into the allegations levelled against Petitioner and

Committee submitted its report, wherein allegations levelled against

Petitioner were not proved. However, despite aforesaid fact being noted

in the order dated 12.10.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 491 of 2005,

Petitioner’s services were terminated illegally without holding any

departmental proceedings in the year 2008.

27. Respondent-Vice Chancellor, in the impugned order dated 5

th

April, 2019 clearly recording, inter alia, that services of Petitioner were

terminated without following any procedure by the Governing Body and

2026:JHHC:20402

10

without initiating any proper proceedings, and, ordered for reinstatement

of Petitioner and even gave liberty to the College to initiate fresh

departmental proceeding from the stage of 1

st

Show Cause Notice served

upon Petitioner. However, while passing said order, Respondent-Vice

Chancellor did not consider the issue of back wages and further made

observation prejudicial to the interest of Petitioner and even observed

that Petitioner lacks the quality of a Principal/Professor In charge of the

College.

28. Thus, on one hand, Vice Chancellor itself declared that

termination of Petitioner was illegal and gave liberty to Governing Body

to initiate fresh proceeding, but, on the other hand, Respondent itself pre-

judged and pre-decided the issue regarding merit of the matter and made

observation prejudicial to the interest of Petitioner. Such observation

made in the impugned order is completely contrary to principles of

natural justice, when Respondent-Vice Chancellor itself left the issue of

alleged irregularity committed by Petitioner to be decided by Governing

Body of the College.

29. Thus, decision of Respondent-Vice Chancellor, to the extent it

made observation against the conduct of Petitioner including his quality

to be appointed as Principal/Professor In charge of the College, in the

impugned order dated 05.04.2019, is deserved to be quashed and set

aside.

30. So far, the issue of payment of arrears of salary to Petitioner is

concerned, this Court, on perusal of the record, is of the firm opinion that

2026:JHHC:20402

11

Petitioner has been victimized for approaching this Court for

safeguarding his right against action taken against him by Governing

Body. This Court, vide order dated 12.10.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 491

of 2005, directed the Vice Chancellor to investigate into the issue as to

whether charges levelled against Petitioner is correct or not, and,

pursuant thereto, a Three-Men Committee was constituted which clearly

opined that allegations against Petitioner were not proved. The relevant

paragraph is quoted herein-below:-

“This case has got a chequered history. The appellant has been

constrained to knock the door of this Court for the third time. As a matter

of fact, after his removal by the order dated 2.9.2002, he filed a writ

petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ

petition, directed the Vice Chancellor to consider two issues – (i) who is

the senior most Professor of the college and (ii) who is the competent

person to be appointed as Principal-in-charge. In pursuance of an order,

the Vice Chancellor conducted an enquiry and found that the appellant is

the senior most Professor and in respect of the second issue, he directed

the Governing Body, which is already in seisin of the matter relating to

the charges against the appellant, to decide the same. Aggrieved by that,

the appellant has filed another writ petition wherein this Court, allowing

the writ petition and quashing the said order, directed the Vice

Chancellor to entrust the matter of enquiry to some other Governing

Body consisting of new persons to decide the second issue. Accordingly,

the Vice Chancellor constituted a three-man committee, which, in turn,

conducted seniority and submitted a report stating that the charges were

not being proved. Despite that, the Vice Chancellor, without considering

that report, simply rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that

the College is only an affiliated unit which has been granted temporary

affiliation. This subject-matter was under challenge before the learned

Single Judge, who, in turn, affirmed the order passed by the Vice

Chancellor. Aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred.

Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the

respondents.

Admittedly, the issues decided by the Vice Chancellor in the

impugned order as directed to be decided by the order of this Court

would indicate that an enquiry was to be made as to who was the senior

most Professor in the College and who was the competent person to be

appointed as Principal-in-charge, but the Vice Chancellor, without

going into the report submitted by the new Committee constituted by him

in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, simply rejected the claim

of the appellant saying that the college is granted temporary affiliation,

which is beyond the scope of the enquiry. Admittedly, the point has not

been answered by the Vice Chancellor in respect of the second issue to

be decided by him as per the order of this Court. In the circumstances,

we deem it fit to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well

2026:JHHC:20402

12

as the order of the Vice Chancellor and direct the Vice Chancellor to go

through the report submitted by the newly constituted Committee

consisting of three members to decide the second issue in accordance

with law as early as possible.”

31. Despite aforesaid finding of Three-Men Committee,

Governing Body of the College, without holding any departmental

proceeding against Petitioner, terminated his services vide order dated

03.11.2008 and it is only consequent upon interference made by this

Court, said termination was set aside by Respondent-Vice Chancellor.

Admittedly, thereafter, Petitioner was reinstated in service. Respondent-

College, in its Counter Affidavit, stated that consequent upon liberty

granted in the impugned order, departmental proceeding was initiated

against Petitioner, but no final order was passed as Petitioner did not

submit his reply. This cannot be an excuse for not passing final order.

32. All the facts cumulatively demonstrate that Petitioner was

made to suffer for no fault of his and after about eleven years of his

illegal termination, Petitioner has been reinstated in service.

33. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that Petitioner is entitled to

be restored to the position of ‘status quo ante’ i.e. the same position in

which Petitioner was in service before termination. It was fairly

submitted by Petitioner that Petitioner; in order to earn his bread and

butter and to survive himself and his family members took up the job of

Para-teacher on contractual basis and was paid honorarium during the

period 03.03.2010 till 2.08.2019.

34. Petitioner further fairly submitted that arrears of back wages to

be paid to Petitioner may be calculated after deducting the amount which

was received by him as honorarium.

2026:JHHC:20402

13

35. Having regard to the aforesaid factual scenario; interest of

justice would be sufficed by holding that Petitioner should be entitled for

75% of back wages from the date of termination of his service till the

date of his reinstatement/joining i.e. 02.08.2019 after deducting the

amount received by Petitioner as honorarium during his contractual

appointment as Para-teacher between the period 03.03.2010 to

2.08.2019.

36. Ordered accordingly.

37. So far as the issue of payment of salary in the same pay-scale

which is paid to other Lecturers is concerned; this Court is having no

hesitation in holding that Petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter

of payment of salary with that of other similarly situated Lecturers. In

fact, Respondent-College, in its Counter Affidavit, made a statement that

it is making payment of salary to Petitioner equivalent to other Lecturers

of the college, but said statement is itself contradicted by Supplementary

Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent-College, wherein in Para-14, it

has been stated as under:-

“14. That in reply to Para 21 to 23 of the rejoinder it is respectfully

submitted that the information as sought for has already been

provided to the Petitioner. It is incorrect to allege that he was not

been given the pay scale rather the pay scale has been fixed

legally from the date of his joining i.e. 2.08.2019.”

38. A bare perusal of aforesaid averment would reveal that pay-

scale of Petitioner on the post of Lecturer has been fixed from the date of

his joining i.e. 02.08.2019, which would clearly reveal that Petitioner is

being paid his salary at initial pay in the pay-scale; whereas service of

Petitioner was directed to be reinstated and, thus, salary should have

2026:JHHC:20402

14

been fixed in the pay-scale by taking into consideration the entire length

of services of the Petitioner from the date of appointment till the date of

his re-joining.

39. The word ‘reinstatement’ should mean restoration of ‘status

quo ante’ i.e. Petitioner would be reinstated with effect from the date of

his termination and would be entitled for all increments and

consequential revision of pay-scale, etc. which, admittedly, is not done

in the present case.

40. In aforementioned facts and circumstances of the present case,

impugned order dated 05.04.2019, to the extent observation prejudicial

to the interest of Petitioner has been made, is hereby, quashed and set

aside.

41. It is further ordered that Petitioner would be entitled for 75%

back wages and consequential benefits, including seniority from the date

of termination of his service till the date of his reinstatement, after

excluding the amount of honorarium which Petitioner received as

contractual employee being Para-teacher.

42. Further, Respondents are directed to re-compute pay-fixation

of Petitioner by taking into consideration the date of original

appointment of Petitioner and grant necessary increments and revision of

pay-scale, as has been extended to other similarly situated Lecturers

working in the College. Aforesaid exercise of payment of arrears of

salary and re-fixation of pay should be carried out within a period of 12

weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and, in

2026:JHHC:20402

15

the event Respondent-College fails to make payment of arrears of salary

to Petitioner within the aforesaid period stipulated period, Petitioner

would be entitled for simple interest @ 6% per annum on the arrear

salary amount from the date of present Judgment till the arrears of salary

are paid to Petitioner.

43. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in the

aforesaid terms. Pending I.As., if any, also stand closed and there shall

be no order as to costs.

(Deepak Roshan, J)

Dated:10 /07/2026

Amardeep/

A.F.R

Uploaded on

10.07.2026