Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 31 (GAU)

P. Lalremliana Jana v. State of Mizoram

2001-02-14

D.BISWAS

body2001
The order dated 25th September, 1997 (Annexure 3) passed by the Joint Director of Higher and Technical Education, Mizoram is in challenge in this writ petition. By the said order, the Joint Director fixed the pay of writ petitioner and others consequent upon framing of the Rules for Recurring Grants-in-aid for General Maintenance of Recognised Aided Colleges in Mizoram, 1990. 2.1 have heard Mr. G. Raju, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo, the learned State counsel for the respondent-State. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that he was appointed as Lecturer on 1.5.90 in o the Aizawl West College and joined the said post on 2.5.90. Thereafter the Governing Body of the college promoted him to the post of Vice Principal with affect from 25th April, 1991 in the scale of pay of Rs 3,000-4,500 per month. The college was given the Deficit status as per Rules of 1990 referred to above with effect from 1.10.95. In pursuance of the provisions of the Rules, the Joint Directors issued the impugned order dated 25th September, 1997 reducing his scale of pay from Rs 3.000-4,500 to Rs 2,200-4,000 with effect from 9.3.92. 4. Mr. Raju, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the petitioner who was appointed and promoted to the post of Vice Principal by the Governing Body and placed in the pay scale of Rs 3,000-4,500 is protected in so far the scale of pay is concerned as per provisions of Rule 6 (3) (c) of the Rules c of 1990. The provisions incorporated in clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 provide that with effect from the date of taking of any institution under grant, the initial pay and allowances of all the members of the staff shall be fixed for the purpose of calculation of approved expenditure by taking into account basic salary actually earned by them and actually paid to them by the institution before such date. 5. The above provision clearly shows that while introducing the Rules in 1990, the State Govt had intended to protect the basic pay and allowances of each of the member of the teaching staff that was being paid immediate before conferment of Deficit status. 6. 5. The above provision clearly shows that while introducing the Rules in 1990, the State Govt had intended to protect the basic pay and allowances of each of the member of the teaching staff that was being paid immediate before conferment of Deficit status. 6. In para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents submitted that as per provisions of clause (j) of sub-rule (3) of the Rule 4, the State is competent to undertake a screening process and weed out those who are not eligible for continuance in service in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the University Grants Commission. 7.1 have examined the provisions of Rule 4 (3) (j). There is no ambiguity in the language employed in the aforesaid clause which clearly provides that screening process by a committee was to be initiated before any institution is brought under Deficit Grant System. In the instant case, no such screening was made before the Aizawl West College was brought under Deficit Grant System and, therefore, such a screening made afterwards for the purpose of reducing pay scale of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained in law. At this stage Mr. Sailo, the learned State counsel referred to the averment made in para 4 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. In the said affidavit, in para 4, it was been stated that the petitioner is subject to the norms prescribed by the UGC. 8. This statement by way of defence does not reflect the actual position. The Rules framed by the UGC in 1991 was brought into force with effect from 19.9.91 and, in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer with effect from 2.5.90 and as Vice Principal with effect from 25.4.91. The status acquired by the writ petitioner prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1991 and u gradation of the college as Deficit college in 1995 could by no stretch of imagination be allowed to be reversed by taking aid of subsequent notifications which are prospective in nature. In my considered opinion, the position of the writ petitioner cannot be varied to his disadvantage and especially, in deviation of the protection extended to him under the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1990. 9. In the result, the impugned notification dated 25th September, 1997, in so far it relates to the writ petitioner, stands quashed. 9. In the result, the impugned notification dated 25th September, 1997, in so far it relates to the writ petitioner, stands quashed. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the writ petitioner with effect from 9.3.92 with due protection . of his basic pay he used to get as Vice Principal. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondents shall complete the process of reexamination and refixation of the pay of the writ petitioner within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs.