Jharkhand High Court
Mahakant Jha vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:9369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2019
---------
Mahakant Jha, S/o Nagendra Jha, aged about 61 years,
Lecturer, Deptt. of Commerce, at B.S.K. College Barharwa,
Distt. Sahibganj, P.O.-Bindudham (barharba), P.S.-Barharba,
Jharkhand. ….Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. SKM University, through its Registrar, Dumka, P.S.
Sadar, P.O.-GPO-Dighi, Dist.-Dumka, Jharkhand.
….Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 6056 of 2018
———
Dr. Shyam Kishore Ambastha aged about 54 years, S/o Late
Radha Kant Ambastha Lecturer, Deptt. of Commerce at B.S.K.
College Barharwa, P.O. & P.S.-Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj,
Jharkhand. ….Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. SKM University, through its Registrar, Dumka, P.S.
Sadar, P.O.-GPO, Jharkhand.
….Respondents
———
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : M/s. Neeraj Shekhar, Shadab Eqbal,
Priyanshu Shekhar, Mehul Raj, Advocates
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I.
Mr. Apoorva Singh, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II
For the Resp.-SKMU : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
———
C.A.V. ON: 19.03.2026 PRONOUNCED ON:02/04/2026
1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.
2. Both these Writ Petitions having common prayer and
issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. The Petitioners in both these Writ Petitions have
1
2026:JHHC:9369
commonly prayed for the following reliefs:
a. For issuance of an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate Writ (s), Order (s) or Direction
(s) to the respondents to confirm the absorption of
the petitioner on the post which is recommended
prior to cut off date i.e 30.04.1986 and fully covered
by the principle laid down by the Justice Agarwal
Commission at Page-24-25 of VOL-1 of its report and
on the sanctioned in terms of Government letter
dated 18.12.1989 (181-C) which has been duly
accepted by this Hon’ble Court in its Judgment of
State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya MSESKK
Mahasangh, 2005 (9) SCC 129 at conclusion-1.
b. For issuance of an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate Writ (s), Order (s) or Direction
(s) to the Respondents to pay salary to the petitioner
in terms of 6th pay scale applicable to the similarly
situated employees.”
4. In W.P (S) No. 328/2019 [Mahakant Jha v. State of
Jharkhand and ors.], the petitioner was temporarily
appointed as Lecturer in the department of Commerce at
B.S.K College, Barharwa on 10.08.1981; pursuant to which,
he gave his joining on 13.08.1981.
5. In W.P (S) No. 6056 / 2018 [Dr. Shyam Kishore
Ambastha v. State of Jharkhand and ors.] the petitioner
was temporarily appointed as Lecturer in the department of
2
2026:JHHC:9369
Commerce at B.S.K College, Barharwa on 09.09.1985,
pursuant to which, he gave his joining on 16.09.1985.
6. The B.S.K College, Barharwa was converted into a
constituent College of Bhagalpur University, Bihar with effect
from 01.01.1987 under an agreement executed on
19.08.1986. Subsequently, upon the establishment of the
Sido Kanhu Murmu University, the college has become a
constituent unit of the Sido Kanhu Murmu University,
Dumka.
7. On 17.01.1987, the State Govt. constituted a “Three
Men High Level Committee” to enquire the number of posts
and also about the persons who were working on the
sanctioned posts / recommended posts. After considering the
report, the State Govt. vide letter no. 38/C dated 01.02.1988
notified the names of teaching and non-teaching employees
working in newly converted constituent college and also
notified the number of sanctioned posts in different
department of different colleges for teaching and non-
teaching staffs.
Subsequently, eight-member committee was constituted
to revise the said list dated 01.02.1988. The said committee
submitted its report which culminated in the Govt. letter
3
2026:JHHC:9369
dated 18.12.1989 (181/C). The name of the petitioners finds
place in the Govt. letter dated 18.12.1989 (181/C).
8. Thereafter, the association of teaching and non-teaching
employees filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of
1995 before the Patna High Court, which was allowed by the
Patna High Court vide order dated 31.01.1997 directing the
University to take steps under Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar
Universities Act, 1976, in respect of regularization of the
services of the Colleges which had became constituent
colleges under different Universities.
9. Against the said order dated 31.01.1997 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995, the State of Bihar moved before
Hon’ble Supreme Court filing S.L.P(C) No. 10452 of 1997
which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in said matter constituted Justice
S.C. Agrawal Commission vide order dated 12.10.2001.
10. Justice Agrawal Commission thereafter, submitted its
report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.12.2003. As
far as the BSK College, Barharwa is concerned; the Hon’ble
Agrawal Commission at Annexure-IVA of its report
recommended the names of the teaching staff who are eligible
to be considered for absorption keeping in view the number of
sanctioned posts as mentioned in the order of the
4
2026:JHHC:9369
Government of the Bihar dated 01.02.1988 and keeping in
view the nature of posts. The said list also contains the
names of the petitioners.
11. Thereafter, names of the petitioners were recommended
by Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission for absorption vide
Annexure-IVA of the report. Annexure-IIIA of the Agrawal
Commission’s Report is facts of the case only and final
recommendation of the Hon’ble Justice Agrawal Commission
for absorption of teaching staff is Annexure-IVA which has
already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
After passing of the order dated 12.10.2004 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the
S.K.M. University, Dumka absorbed the petitioners in the
services of the S.K.M University in terms of Notification No.
24 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005.
12. Since, the dispute could not be settled on the basis of
the recommendation of the Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequently appointed Justice
S.B. Sinha Commission on 19.08.2013. The petitioners made
an application before Justice S.B. Sinha Commission.
However, Justice S.B. Sinha Commission dismissed the claim
of the petitioners holding the fact that there was no
sanctioned/recommended post available in the department.
5
2026:JHHC:9369
Subsequently the petitioners filed application before the
Justice S.B. Sinha Commission for the recall of the said
dismissal order but the same was also dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Writ
Petitions claiming aforesaid relief.
13. The respondents have appeared and filed counter
affidavit in both the cases stating that Petitioners were
appointed as Lecturers on the non-sanctioned post in the
Department of Commerce in B.S.K College, Barharwa,
Sahibganj. As per Annexure-IA of the Report of Justice (Retd.)
Agrawal Commission there was only one (1) sanctioned post
of Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in the college till
14.08.1981. As per Annexure-II-A of Agrawal Commission
Report, recommendation for only one (1) post was sent on 25
April, 1981 for the Department of Commerce for this College.
Thus, in totality, there were only two posts available for
absorbing two teachers in the Department of Commerce in
this college. So, the total number of teachers who could have
been regularized/absorbed in the Department of Commerce
in this College was only two.
Ld. Counsel reiterated that there was no third post or
more posts available for absorption/regularization of the
petitioners in this college in view of the recommendations of
6
2026:JHHC:9369
Justice Agrawal Commission and/or the Order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal no. 6098 of
1997. In the report of Agrawal Commission, the names of the
petitioners were included in Annexure-III-A, in the category of
RII/NR and in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India passed in Civil Appeal Case No. 6098 of 1997 since
the name of the petitioners find place in the negative list i.e.
Annexure-III-A, the case of the petitioners was/is not fit for
absorption at all even though their names find place in
Annexure-IV-A; thus, there does not arise any question of
confirmation of the absorption of the petitioners by the
University vide Notification no. 24 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005.
14. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties, it
appears that the case of similarly situated persons from the
same B.S.K College, Barharwa fell for consideration before
this Court in the case of W.P(S) No. 2594 of 2018 titled Anil
Kumar Sarkar and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and
Ors.] which was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2022. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows:
“17. Further case of the petitioners is that names of the petitioners have been
recommended by the Hon’ble Justice Agarwal Commission for absorption vide
Annexure-IVA of the report (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) and Annexure-IIIA of
the Agarwal Commission’s Report is facts of the case only and final
recommendation of the Hon’ble Agarwal Commission for absorption of teaching
staff is Annexure-IVA which has already been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. After passing of the order dated 12.10.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the S.K.M. Univeristy, Dumka absorbed
the petitioners in the services of the S.K.M University in terms of Notification No.
23 of 2005 (Annexure- 5 of the writ application) and in the said Notification name7
2026:JHHC:9369of the petitioners are appearing at serial no. 27,32,34,36,37,39,40,41 and 42.
18. Further case of the petitioners is that after passing the order of
absorption by the SKM University i.e. Respondent no. 5, the S.K.M. University
also fixed the pay scale of the petitioners in 5th UGC Pay Scale w.e.f.
01.01.1996 and same was sent by the Registrar, SKM University, Dumka
(Respondent no. 6) before the Director (Higher Education), Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand (now Higher, Technical Education
and Skill Development Department), vide Annexure13 of the writ petition, for
approval for payment of salary in 5th UGC Pay Scale. Names of the petitioners
also find mentioned in the said pay fixation chart at serial nos. 5,7,8,9,10, 12,
13, 14 and 15…..
27. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph-15 of the Judgment
passed in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2011, reported in 2012(3) JLJR 579 has held as
follows:
“15. In this fact, situation we may again look into the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Bihar Rajya
M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra) as according to the counsel for the appellant
State, the State Government is not bound to accord benefits of revision of pay
scale because of the fact that the recommendations were not sent in time by the
university. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to observe that in the case of
State of Bihar & Others Vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that in the matter of deciding the question of
validity of appointment in affiliated colleges and absorption of those appointees
in constituent colleges, the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon vests in the university
in view of Section 4(1) (14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that the said matter is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the university concerned. Then it has been held that Section 35
requires prior sanction or approval of the State Government for certain of the
posts and appointment, not a constraint on the power of the university and the
university can review appointment and consider absorption of its staff employed
without valid sanction of the post. Otherwise also it is not the case of the State
Government that such power vests in the State Government of examining validity
of appointment in the constituent colleges. In view of the above, it is clear that
the appointment of the petitioners, who were appointed In the year 1985, were
not found to be illegal by the Commission after considering the objection of the
State Government that their names were inserted by interpolation and the
Commission thereafter recommended for absorption of the writ petitioners and
Hon’ble Supreme Court has already rejected all objections against the
Commission’s report including the State Government objections which have been
referred above.”
The order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 339 of 2011 has also
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. CC6146 OF 2013
(State of Jharkhand and Anothes Vs. Surendra Kumar Sahu and others).
28. The said issue also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of
Sh. Avinash Sharan and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in
Contempt Case (C) No. 824 of 2007 and in the case of Dr. Trilochan Mahto and
others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another in Contempt Case (C) No. 370 of
2012 as also in the case of Satya Narayan Singh and another Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 5197 of 2017 and this Court directed the
respondents to consider case of the petitioners taking into consideration the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3260 of 2016.
29. It appears from the record that after passing order dated 08.03.2013 in
Contempt Case (C) No. 370 of 2012 by this Court, the Principal Secretary, Human
Resources Development Department also admitted that State Government is not
8
2026:JHHC:9369
required to take any decision regarding absorption of the teachers in the services
of the University and the same has to be taken by the University and State has
to take decision about the pay fixation only, as received from the University.
Since petitioners are eligible for absorption and as such approval is to be granted
for fixation of pay as made by the University.”
15. Similar issue also fell for consideration in the case of
W.P (S) No. 7360 of 2017 disposed of vide order dated
01.12.2025 and in this regard it is relevant to quote para-10,
11 and 12 of the said order.
“10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that this Court in a
catena of decisions in similar cases has decided the issue. In W.P. (S) No.
6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No. 6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as
under:-
Para 18- “… with reference to the government decision dated
18.12.1989, the Hon’ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is not
the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms of
Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the reflection
of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached on the
ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of Article
166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and
accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as a
governmental decision.”
Para 20-“In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is
manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those
teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created in
the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on
retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The
Hon’ble Patna High Court in Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State of
Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3) PLIR
1029) came to the following conclusions:….
Para 21- “As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and in
the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Patna
High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb the
petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms of the
original decision of absorption and notification considering the fact that
the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181 (C).”
Para 22-“it is needless to say that once the University takes
favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University will
work out for the entitlement and request the State Government for
grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary benefit
may be extended to the petitioners.”
11. This Court in W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 – Prof. Goverdhan Mehta v.
State of Jharkhand & Others, has held in paragraph 10 as under:-
“10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone which is
competent to confirm/regularize the services of the employees of the
newly converted constituent colleges and since the University has
already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed the appointment of
the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English at
Marwari College, no further exercise is required to be undertaken for
regularization/confirmation of the services of the Petitioner. It is an9
2026:JHHC:9369admitted fact that the Petitioner had been duly discharging his
services on the post of Lecturer in the Department of English and, in
fact, after serving for almost 40 years, the Petitioner has already
superannuated from service on 31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed
fact that the Petitioner all along has been paid his salary, but in the
unrevised payscale and the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to
5th, 6th and 7th UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the
Petitioner. The said benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on
the pretext that services of the Petitioner were not regularized.
Reliance placed by the State Government upon the Judgment of Dr.
Shiv Narain Yadav & ors (supra) Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported
in (2001) 2 PLJR 817, for denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale is
not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case,
services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on 29.05.1997
(Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University and, thus, the said
decision would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Apart
from that, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of the Patna High
Court has already been referred to a larger Bench for re- consideration
and, further, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kusheshwar
Prasad Singh (supra), has already distinguished the ratio of the said
Judgment in the case of similarly situated employees.”
12. It is an admitted case that the services of the petitioner were regularized
by the State Government vide Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989
(Annexure-5); which letter has nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefits.
It is also an admitted position that the petitioner continued in service
since the date of his joining i.e. 05.07.1985 till the attainment of age of
superannuation i.e. 31st January 2023 and during the entire period, the
petitioner was paid his salary, though at the unrevised scale. The
respondents having taken work from the petitioner and thus cannot deny
him the benefits of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Revisions. Similarly, the
Respondent cannot deny payment of retiral dues to the petitioner after
having taken work from him for about 38 years.”
16. Further, in W.P. (S) No. 6491 of 2017 and W.P. (S) No.
6503 of 2017, this Court has observed as under:-
“18- … with reference to the government decision dated
18.12.1989, the Hon’ble Supreme Court negated the objection of the
State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand that letter no. 181C is
not the governmental decision as it was not authenticated in terms
of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court categorically held out that the letter dated 18.12.1989 is the
reflection of the governmental decision and it cannot be impeached
on the ground that the said letter was not authenticated in terms of
Article 166 of the Constitution and there is no cabinet decision and
accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court accepted the letter no. 181C as
a governmental decision.
20-” In view of the statements made in the writ petition, it is
manifest that two vacant posts are available for absorption of those
teaching employees as it has been indicated that vacancy created
in the Department of Commerce in A.B.M. College, Jamshedpur on
retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra and on transfer of Sri D.K. Mitra. The
Hon’ble Patna High Court in “Akhilanand Singh & Ors. Vs The State
of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 17670 of 2017 reported in 2018 (3)
PLIR 1029) came to the following conclusions:…….
21. As a cumulative effect of the discussion made above and
in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
Patna High Court, the respondent-University is directed to absorb
the petitioners and render the status of absorbed employee in terms10
2026:JHHC:9369of the original decision of absorption and notification considering
the fact that the name of the petitioners figure in the letter no. 181
(C).
22. It is needless to say that once the University takes
favourable decision on the claim of the petitioners, the University
will work out for the entitlement and request the State Government
for grant of additional fund so that the consequential monetary
benefit may be extended to the petitioners.”
17. In yet another case also, W.P. (S) No. 4173 of 2013 –
(Prof. Goverdhan Mehta v. State of Jharkhand & Others),
this Court has held in paragraph 10 as under:-
“10. In the backdrop of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the issue is no longer res integra and it is the University alone
which is competent to confirm/regularize the services of the
employees of the newly converted constituent colleges and since the
University has already, as far back as in the year 1997, confirmed
the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the
Department of English at Marwari College, no further exercise is
required to be undertaken for regularization/confirmation of the
services of the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner
had been duly discharging his services on the post of Lecturer in
the Department of English and, in fact, after serving for almost 40
years, the Petitioner has already superannuated from service on
31.08.2020. It is also an undisputed fact that the Petitioner all
along has been paid his salary, but in the unrevised pay-scale and
the benefit of revision of pay-scale pursuant to 5th, 6th and 7th
UGC revised pay-scale has not been extended to the Petitioner. The
said benefit has not been extended to the Petitioner on the pretext
that services of the Petitioner were not regularized. Reliance placed
by the State Government upon the Judgment of Dr. Shiv Narain
Yadav & ors (supra) Vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 2
PLJR 817, for denying the benefit of revision of pay-scale is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case,
services of the Petitioner have already been regularized on
29.05.1997 (Annexure-9) by the Respondent- Ranchi University
and, thus, the said decision would not be applicable in the case of
the Petitioner. Apart from that, the aforesaid decision of Division
Bench of the Patna High Court has already been referred to a larger
Bench for re- consideration and, further, coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh (supra), has already
distinguished the ratio of the said Judgment in the case of similarly
situated employees.”
18. In the case at hand, admittedly, after passing of the
aforesaid order dated 12.10.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, the S.K.M. University,
Dumka absorbed the petitioners in the services of the S.K.M
University in terms of Notification No. 24 of 2005 dated
11
2026:JHHC:9369
07.04.2005. In view of such admitted position, this Court is
of the view that at this stage, it is not open for the
respondents to question absorption of petitioners who have
already been absorbed in view of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court considering Annexure-IVA of the Report
of the Agrawal Commission.
19. It is also an admitted case that the services of the
petitioners were regularized by the State Government vide
Notification No.181/C dated 18.12.1989; which letter has
nowhere been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioners
cannot be deprived of the benefits as prayed for. It is also an
admitted position that the petitioners continued in service
since the date of their joining, i.e. 13.08.1981 and
09.09.1985 and during the entire period, the petitioners were
paid their salaries, though at the unrevised scale.
Furthermore, the respondents have taken work from the
petitioners and thus cannot deny them the benefits of 5th,
and 6th Pay Revisions. Similarly, the Respondent cannot
deny payment of other consequential benefits to the
petitioners after having taken work from them for their entire
service period.
20. Accordingly, the instant writ applications deserve to be,
and are, hereby, allowed as the petitioners are entitled to the
12
2026:JHHC:9369
reliefs of benefits of a regular employee which includes the
payment of arrears of salary on the basis of the 5th, and 6th
Pay Revisions as well as all consequential benefits.
21. As such, the concerned Respondents are directed to
issue a formal order and extend all other consequential
benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt /
production of copy of this order.
22. Consequently, the instant writ applications stand
allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
02.04.2026
Amardeep/-
A.F.R.
Uploaded on
06.04.2026
13
