Disbursement of Arrears Under Fifth Pay Revision Following Service Regularization Pursuant to Supreme Court Mandate.

The 24 petitioners are retired employees whose services were regularized by Ranchi University following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997

Despite regularization, the petitioners alleged that their arrears of salary for the period between 01.01.1996 and 31.03.2000, under the 5th Pay Fixation, remained unpaid

Seeking disbursement of these arrears, the petitioners approached the High Court of Jharkhand under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the payment of arrears of salary for the period of 01.01.1996 to 31.03.2000 under the 5th Pay Fixation following their regularization

2. Whether the court should direct the University and State authorities to resolve the grievances through a time-bound administrative decision instead of a full adjudication on merits

The court applied the principle of administrative exhaustion and the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel public authorities to perform their statutory duties

It specifically referenced the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, which mandated the regularization of services

The court also relied on the procedural rules governing the disposal of writ applications where a decision can be reached by directing a representation to the competent authority in accordance with applicable rules and regulations

The court did not delve into the merits of the petitioners' claim for arrears. Instead, it focused on the procedural fairness and the efficiency of administrative redressal.

Given the petitioners’ request for a direction to the respondents to "look into the matter" and the State’s submission that no counter-affidavit had yet been filed, the court determined that the appropriate remedy was to direct the Registrar of Nilamber-Pitamber University to treat the writ petition as a formal representation.

The court reasoned that the University must first verify the suitability of the petitioners’ claims under existing laws and regulations before the State can take a final decision on the financial disbursement.

If the petitioners are found eligible, the University is directed to recommend the case to the State Government, which must take a final decision within an additional 4 weeks. No specific financial relief was granted by the court; rather, it mandated a time-bound administrative review.