After Nearly Four Decades of Service, Jharkhand High Court Orders Regularisation and Full Pensionary Benefits for Ranchi University Lecturer
W.P. (S) No. 7360 of 2017
By Navya Tiwari
In a significant judgment concerning long-pending service regularisation disputes in constituent colleges, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the State Government and Ranchi University to formally regularise the services of a lecturer who had served continuously for nearly thirty-eight years and to grant him all consequential benefits, including revised pay scales and retiral dues.
The judgment was delivered on 1 December 2025 by Justice Deepak Roshan in W.P. (S) No. 7360 of 2017, filed by Ravi Bhushan Prasad Amar, a lecturer in Mathematics at Mandar College, Ranchi.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking regularisation of his services and extension of benefits flowing from the 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Revisions, contending that despite rendering uninterrupted service since 1985, the authorities had continued to treat him as an employee drawing salary in an unrevised scale.
According to the case record, the petitioner had initially been appointed as a temporary Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics at Mandar College on 29 June 1985 and joined service on 5 July 1985. Subsequently, the college was taken over by Ranchi University in 1986 and converted into a constituent college. A scrutiny committee constituted by the University later verified the appointments of employees working in the institution at the time of takeover, and the petitioner’s name appeared in the official records.
The controversy primarily revolved around a government notification dated 18 December 1989 through which the services of teaching and non-teaching employees of the newly taken-over colleges were absorbed. The petitioner’s name appeared in the notification under the Mathematics Department. Despite this, disputes regarding the legality and implementation of such absorptions continued for decades and became the subject matter of extensive litigation before the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that throughout the petitioner’s service career, the University had continued to issue transfer and posting orders in his favour, thereby recognising him as part of the institutional framework. He was even transferred to B.S. City College, Bokaro, before later being reposted to Mandar College.
The judgment further records that several judicial and administrative exercises were undertaken over the years to resolve disputes relating to absorbed employees of constituent colleges, including proceedings before the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission and later the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission constituted pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner had approached the Justice S.B. Sinha Commission seeking adjudication of his claim and seniority dispute. However, the Commission refrained from deciding the matter on merits and observed that the petitioner was free to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
Meanwhile, despite continuing in service until his superannuation on 31 January 2023, the petitioner remained deprived of revised UGC pay scales and retiral benefits. The University defended its position by claiming that the petitioner’s regularisation remained disputed and had not been conclusively accepted by the commissions constituted for examining such claims.
Rejecting the stand of the respondents, Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the petitioner’s absorption under Notification No. 181/C dated 18 December 1989 had never been rescinded and therefore continued to hold the field. The Court emphasised that the petitioner had served continuously for almost four decades and that the authorities had consistently taken work from him while simultaneously denying him the status and benefits of a regular employee.
The Court relied upon several earlier decisions dealing with similarly situated lecturers and constituent college employees. It referred to previous rulings affirming that the 1989 absorption notification represented a valid governmental decision and that universities possessed the authority to regularise and confirm services of employees working in constituent colleges.
Justice Roshan observed that once the petitioner had continuously discharged his duties from 1985 till retirement, the respondents could not lawfully deny him revised pay scales or pensionary benefits merely on technical grounds relating to formal absorption. The Court held that withholding such benefits after extracting nearly thirty-eight years of service was unsustainable in law.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the concerned authorities to issue a formal order recognising the petitioner’s entitlement as a regular employee and to extend all consequential service and retirement benefits, including arrears arising from the 5th, 6th, and 7th Pay Revisions. The Court granted the respondents twelve weeks to comply with the directions.
The judgment is likely to hold significance for several similarly situated teachers and staff members of constituent colleges in Jharkhand whose claims regarding absorption, pay revision, and pensionary benefits have remained unresolved despite long years of service.
