Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 223 (PAT)

Prof. Amarnath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-14

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. The State Government while relenting to grant the revised U.G.C. Scales of pay to the University and college teachers of this State also put the rider that promotions granted to teachers under the time bound promotion Statutes would be deemed nullified and those teachers who were now Professors or Readers shall have their pay fixed in the reyised U.G.C. Scales in their substantive ranks of Lecturers or Readers, as the case may be (i.e. posts held by them before their promotions under the time-bound Statutes), The Government decision shall very adversely affect a very large number of teachers in this State (about five thousand, according to the States affidavit), some of whom are before this court in this batch of eight writ petitioners. 2. The present controversy relates to the implementation of the 1996 U.G.C. Scales. Before this the U.G.C. had revised pay scales for teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and the 1986 U.G.C. Scales were extended to the teachers In this State by letter no. 14/P2-09/87 HRD 1044, dated U.G.C. scales of pay the position that emerged in this State for the three main classes of teachers, leaving aside the matters of detail which are not relevant for the present, was as follows: Designation Scales of pay before 1.4.1986 Scales of pay as revised w.e.f. 1.4.86 1. Lecturer Rs. 700-1600 Rs. 2200-4000 2. Reader Rs. 1200-1900 (i) Rs. 3700-5700 Direct recruit and those promoted till 1.3.1989. (ii) Rs. 3000-5000 those promoted after 1.3.1989 3. University Professor Rs. 1500-2500 (i) Rs. 4500-7300 Direct recruit and those promoted till 1.3.1989 (ii) Rs. 4500-5700 those promoted after 1.3.1989 3. By U.G.C. Notification 1998 the scales of pay of teachers were once again revised w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The 1996 U.G.C. Scales, leaving aside matters of detail not relevant for our purpose, revised the scales of pay for the three main classes of teachers as follows: Lecturer Rs. 8000-13500 Reader (i) Rs. 12000-18300 (ii) Rs. 10000-15000 University Professor Rs. 16400-22400 4. Ever since the revision of scales by the U.G.C. the teachers of this State are making the demand for the grant of the revised 1996 U.G.C. scales. The State Government finally agreed to grant the revised 1996 U.G.C. scales to the teachers of this State and in that connection the Secretary to the Government in the department of higher education issued letter no. The State Government finally agreed to grant the revised 1996 U.G.C. scales to the teachers of this State and in that connection the Secretary to the Government in the department of higher education issued letter no. 15/MF 218/98 (H.E.) 1300, dated July 20, 2001 addressed to the Vice Chancellors of all the Universities in this State. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of this letter are the cause of bitter resentment to the petitioners and come under challenge in this batch of writ petitions. These two paragraphs (Translated into English) are reproduced below: "14. To teachers promoted under Time-Bound-Promotion Scheme/other State sponsored Schemes the revised pay scale will be granted on the basis as if they were never given promotions to the posts of Reader and/or University Professor. That is to say, their pay fixation will be made in the basic grade of the revised pay scale But if any teacher was promoted in the grade of Reader under the merit promotion scheme and in the grade of University Professor under the time-bound scheme then this pay fixation will be made in the revised pay scale admissible to Reader. For pay fixation in the revised pay scale, (first) the product will be calculated by adding to the basic pay in the unrevised scale as on 1.1.1996, the dearness allowance admissible on it (ref.-Govt. of India letter no, F. 1-22/99-U-l, dated 15.12.99, average index number 1510 (1960=100) in accordance with which 148% is the maximum as on 1.1.1996) and 40% of the basic pay as the benefit of revision and the product so arrived at will be fitted at the appropriate place in the revised scale after being rounded off to a whole number. 15. Teachers mentioned in para-14 will be given opportunity for being adjusted under the U.G.C. recommended Merit Promotion Scheme (1983) brought into force by Letter No. BSU/G/86-3975/ G.S. (i), dated 22.12.1986, 359/G.S. (I), dated 22.02.84 issued from the Governors Secretariat (and as amended by letter no. 164, dated 27.12.1984 and letter no. BSU-09/85-3742 G.S. (i), dated 24.11.86) and Letter No. BSU-20/95- 2133/G.S. (I), dated 23.09.95 and Career Advancement Scheme, 1987 which has been introduced in the Universities by Governors Secretariat Letter No. BSU-20-95-2132/G.S. (i), dated 23.09.95 w.e.f. the date of issuance of the letter. 164, dated 27.12.1984 and letter no. BSU-09/85-3742 G.S. (i), dated 24.11.86) and Letter No. BSU-20/95- 2133/G.S. (I), dated 23.09.95 and Career Advancement Scheme, 1987 which has been introduced in the Universities by Governors Secretariat Letter No. BSU-20-95-2132/G.S. (i), dated 23.09.95 w.e.f. the date of issuance of the letter. Keeping in view the difficulties that might be faced by such teachers it has been decided to simplify the procedure for adjustment under Merit Promotion Scheme and/or Career Advancement Scheme. For example those teachers whose promotion under Time Bound Promotion Scheme/other State sponsored Scheme in any category has once been concurred by Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission shall not again require concurrence of the Commission for their adjustment under Merit Promotion Scheme/Career Advancement Scheme." 5. The government decision as contained in para 14 of the letter thus classified teachers who had got promotions under the time-bound promotion statutes separately from other teachers in order to deny them the benefit of revision of pay scales. Paragraph 15 then provided the means for the demoted teachers to have their positions restored by getting promotions under the proper merit based/career advancemen t promotion statutes; those who failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under the merit based/career advancement promotion statutes would of course find themselves completely de-barred from the benefits of the revision of pay scales. 6. At this stage we may take a look at the statutes for time-bound promotion. The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the Patna University Act, 1976 did not contain any provision for promotion of teachers from one category to another and in .the scheme of the two Acts the three categories of teachers viz. Lecturer, Reader and University Professor appear as independent entry points to be filled up by direct recruitment. The provisions for promotion of Lecturers as Readers first came in the form of Statute For Promotion of Lecturers To The Post of Readers. The Chancellors approval to the statute was communicated by letter no. 5260 GS (1) dated 18.11.1980 and these came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1980. The 1980 Statutes were replaced by the Revised Statutes For Promotion of Lecturers To the Post of Reader, the Chancellors approval for which was communicated vide letter no BSU-41/ 81-2779-GS (1), dated.14.11J981. The Chancellors approval to the statute was communicated by letter no. 5260 GS (1) dated 18.11.1980 and these came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1980. The 1980 Statutes were replaced by the Revised Statutes For Promotion of Lecturers To the Post of Reader, the Chancellors approval for which was communicated vide letter no BSU-41/ 81-2779-GS (1), dated.14.11J981. The 1981 Statutes were superseded by the Statutes Fa Time Bound Promotion of lecturers To The Post Of Readers And For Readers To The Post Of University Professors. These Statutes received the Chancellors approval by letter no. BSU- 27/85-4032/GS (1) dated 24.12.1986 it was indicated at the beginning of the Statutes that the Chancellor had been pleased to approve the Statutes on the recommendations of the Bihar Inter University Board and the State Government as provided under section 5 (2) of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981. These Statutes came into force w.e.f. 1.2.1985 superseding the 1981 Statutes. The supersession however was subject to the stipulation that all actions taken under the earlier Statutes before the date of commencement of the 1986 Statutes would be deemed to be valid. 7. These three Statutes provided for promotion of teachers from one category to another on a time bound basis. These Statutes are, therefore, commonly known as Time Bound Promotion Statutes and promotions granted under these Statutes are called Time Bound Promotions. 8. The 1980 and the 1981 Statutes provided for the promotion of a Lecturer to the post of Reader, on the recommendation of the University Selection Committee after 13 years of continuous service as Lecturer in case he held a doctorate degree and after 18 years of continuous service as Lecturer in case he did not hold a doctorate degree but subject to the condition that he held substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer. 9. The 1986 Statutes further relaxed the period for promotion for lecturers and also provided for promotion of Readers as University Professors. These Statutes provided for the promotion of a Lecturer to the post of Reader, on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, on completion of ten years of continuous service as Lecturer in one or more Universities, subject to the conditions that (i) he held the prescribed qualifications for the post of Lecturer at the time of his appointment as Lecturer and (ii) held substantive appointment on the post of Lecturer. The 1986 Statutes also made provisions for promotion of a Reader as University Professor and provided for the promotion of a Reader to the post of University Professor, on the recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, on completion of at least 25 years of continuous service as teacher, not below the rank of Lecturer in one or more Universities or on completion of at least 16 years of continuous service as Lecturer/Reader in one or more Universities, provided that he possessed the qualification of a University Professor prescribed by the University Grants Commission. 10. While the 1981 Time Bound Promotion Statutes were subsisting and operational, another set of Statutes were introduced called the Statutes Regarding Merit Promotion Of Readers To University Professors. These Statutes were approved by the Chancellor vide letter no. 359 GS (1) dated 22.2.1984 and were later amended on 27.12.1984 and 24.11.1986. Later on similar Statutes For Merit Based Promotion Of Lecturers As Readers were approved by the Chancellor vide letter no. BSU-6/86-3975/GS (1), dated 22.12.1986. These two Statutes are said to be based on a scheme framed by the U.G.C. in the year 1983 for grant of merit based promotions to teachers from one category to another. Though the merit based promotion Statutes also provided for a minimum qualifying period in the grade from which promotion was to be granted, the provisions of the merit based Statutes laid greater emphasis on the academic credentials and scholastic achievements of the concerned teacher. Further, under the merit based promotion statutes promotions could be made not in excess of one third of the total number of permanent positions in the category (Lecturer or Reader, as the case may be) from which promotions were to be made. 11. The 1986 Time Bound Promotion Statutes came to an end when the Career Advancement Scheme of the U.G.C. was introduced in this State and the Chancellor on 23.9.1995 gave his approval to the Statute for Promotion of Lecturers in the Senior pay-scale (Rs. 3000-5000) to the posts of Readers in the pay-scale of 2700- 5700 and placement of Lecturers in the Senior scale of pav to the post of Lecturers in the Selection grade (3700-5700) The two merit based promotion Statutes similarly came to end on the same date. 3000-5000) to the posts of Readers in the pay-scale of 2700- 5700 and placement of Lecturers in the Senior scale of pav to the post of Lecturers in the Selection grade (3700-5700) The two merit based promotion Statutes similarly came to end on the same date. The 1984 merit based Statutes for Promotion of Readers to University Professors was superseded by Statute regarding merit promotion of Readers as Professors applicable to those existing teachers opting for merit promotion in response to Human Resource Development Department Letter No. 1044. dated 7.8.1989. And the 1986 merit based Statutes for Promotion of Lecturers as Readers was superseded by Statute regarding merit promotion of Lecturers of Readers as Professors applicable to those existing teachers Opting for merit promotion in response to Human Resource Development Department Letter No. 1044. dated 7.8.1989. 12. From what is stated above it would appear that for a certain period of time (1984 to 1995) both the time-bound Promotion Statutes and the merit based promotion Statutes were subsisting and operational in this State side by side. But it is an undeniable fact that a very large number of teachers had their promotions granted under the time-bound Promotion Statutes and relatively very few teachers got their promotions under the merit based promotion Statutes. This was primarily due to three reasons. First, the merit based promotion Statutes, laid down a much higher standard of academic and scholastic achievements and required a far more stringent screening of the concerned teachers credentials for promotion than the Statutes for time-bound promotion. Secondly, the merit based promotion Statutes put a limitation in respect of the total number of promotions that might be granted under those Statutes but the time bound promotion Statutes had no such limitation and thirdly by virtue of clause 8 of the 1986 Time Bound Promoton Statutes read with the relevant provisions of the Service Statutes of the University, a teacher promoted under the time bound promotion Statutes would get a far better deal in pay fixation in the promoted category of Reader or University Professor. This valuable monetary benefit was not made available to teachers promoted under the merit based promotion Statutes. 13. In this regard, Mr. This valuable monetary benefit was not made available to teachers promoted under the merit based promotion Statutes. 13. In this regard, Mr. Azfar Hasan, SC 7 appearing for the State cited an interesting though curious example of a teacher who initially applied for promotion under the merit based Promotion Statutes but on getting promotion after undergoing a far more stringent screening under the provisions of the merit based promotion Statutes he found to his dismay that teachers junior to him and perhaps also inferior in academic achievements had got promotion in the same category under the time bound Statutes from an anterior date than him. He too, therefore, applied for promotion under the time bound Statutes and getting his promotion under those Statutes was able to advance his date of promotion in that category. 14. At this stage it is important to take further note of two points which are relevant to the controversy before the court. One is that the promotions under the two sets of Statutes were held completely at par. Even though promotions under the time-bound Statutes were more lucrative and came more easily, there was absolutely nothing to indicate that a teacher getting promotion under the time bound Statutes might be held inferior, at the time of promotion or at any later date, to another teacher promoted to the same grade under the merit based Statutes. In the promoted grade the promotees under the two sets of Statutes were always treated at par and this was another very important circumstance taken along with the three factors enumerated above that led to an overwhelming majority of teachers opting for the time bound Statutes for promotion. The other point of which note must be taken is that any promotion given under the time bound Statutes was deemed to be a personal promotion which would lead to the upgradation of the post earlier held by the promotee. The Statutes further provided that the upgraded post would be deemed to be a substantive post till the promotee held it. The relevant provisions were contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 in each of the three time bound Statutes of 1980, 1981 and 1986. Clauses 6 and 7 of the 1986 Statutes are reproduced below: "6. The Statutes further provided that the upgraded post would be deemed to be a substantive post till the promotee held it. The relevant provisions were contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 in each of the three time bound Statutes of 1980, 1981 and 1986. Clauses 6 and 7 of the 1986 Statutes are reproduced below: "6. The post held by the Lecturer or Reader who is promoted to the post of Reader or University Professor shall be deemed to be upgraded with effect from the date of such promotion and shall remain upgraded as such till the incumbent continues to hold the post, but the same shall be converted into the post of Lecturer or Reader, as the case may be, in the event of retirement, resignation, death or otherwise, provided that if the post of Reader or Lecturer was itself an upgraded post which was further upgraded as that of Reader or University Professor, the same shall be converted into the Lecturers post in the event of vacancy. "7. The upgraded post shall be deemed to be a substantive post till the promotee holds it but any temporary vacancy on the post on account of promotee being on leave or on foreign service or officiating or holding another post on temporary basis, shall be that of Lecturer or Reader (not being as upgraded post), as the case may be." 15. Any discussion about the promotion statutes, in the context of pay revision will not be complete unless a few other related facts are taken note of. In the U.G.C. scheme of things there was nothing similar to time bound promotions. In the year 1983 the U.G.C. framed the merit based promotion scheme. A few years later it introduced the Career Advancement Scheme and the 1986 U.G.C. scales made provisions for two scales of pay for Readers and University Professors with the slightly lower of the two scales being admissible to those teachers who would opt for promotion to those posts under the merit based promotion Statutes after the introduction of the Career Advancement Scheme. The Central Government accepted the recommendations of the U.G.C. on 17.6.1987 and it thus became the cutoff date for granting the slightly lower pay scales to those teachers who opted for promotion as Reader or Professor under the merit based promotion Statutes after that date. The Central Government accepted the recommendations of the U.G.C. on 17.6.1987 and it thus became the cutoff date for granting the slightly lower pay scales to those teachers who opted for promotion as Reader or Professor under the merit based promotion Statutes after that date. In this State the 1986 U.G.C. scales were not implemented at that time and the matter of implementation of those scales came up for consideration in this State, after three years, in 1989. Then arose certain difficulties. The Central Government had made any financial assistance to the States for the implementation of the scheme strictly subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales, together with all the conditions, attached to it should be adopted by the State Government as a composite package without any modification whatsoever. But during the previous ten years the developments taking place in this State were not in harmony with the U.G.C. norms which were in existence at that time and as a result the situation in this State was, in certain respects, not consistent with some features of the 1986 U.G.C. package. It is noted above that by the year 1989 a good many teachers were promoted as Readers and University Professors under the time-bound schemes which was first introduced in the year 1980 and was still operational in 1989 in the form of the 1986 Statutes. The teachers promoted under the time bound scheme had no place in the 1986 U.G.C. package. Apart from this, the 1986 U.G.C. scales had fixed 60 years as the age of retirement for University and College teachers. In this State the same age of retirement was fixed under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the Patna University Act, 1976. But in 1986 the age of retirements was extended to 62 years by Ordinances amending the relevant provisions in the two Acts and in 1989 the age of retirement of University and College teachers in this State was 62 years which was being maintained by promulgation of successive Ordinances. The situation in Bihar was thus in deviation from the U.G.C. package on two major points. One, the enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 62 years and there being a number of Readers and Professors promoted under the time-bound promotion scheme. 16. The situation in Bihar was thus in deviation from the U.G.C. package on two major points. One, the enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 62 years and there being a number of Readers and Professors promoted under the time-bound promotion scheme. 16. Of the two deviations it was relatively easier to deal with the one relating to enhancement in the age of retirement and this was taken care of by allowing the last of the successive Ordinances to lapse in August 1989. But the other deviation concerning the time bound promotees was not so easy to deal with as promotions already granted to a number of teachers under the time-bound Statutes could not be simply undone. In those circumstances the State Government appears to have devised a compromise formula under which it was resolved that promotion granted upto 1.3.1989 will not be reopened but the teachers getting promotions under the existing schemes after that date will be entitled to the slightly lower scales of pay for the post of Reader and University Professor fixed in the 1986 U.G.C. scales. 17. It is to be noted there that the cut off date 1.3.1989 fixed by the State Government was different and much later than the cut off date of 17.6.1987 fixed by the Central Government for the purpose and this difference in dates also created problems for the State Government in getting Central assistance for implementation of the scheme. It may be stated here that the significance of this particular date 1.3.1989 could not be made fully clear to the court. 18. Mr. Jaynandan Singh, learned counsel in C.W.J.C. No. 11986/2001 invited my attention to the Minutes of The Meeting With The Members of Futab & Fustab Held On 1st & 2nd May,1989 Under The Chairmanship Of Commissioner- cum-Secretary To The Government. Human Resources Development Department. (at page 21 Part II of the Book called Encyclopaedia of University Laws of Bihar, Malhotra Books 1999 publication) and submitted that this date was perhaps indicated in a public announcement made by the States Chief Minister at that time and 1.3.1989, thus came to be made as the cut off date in this State. 19. Be that as it may, the State Government implemented the 1986 U.G.C. Scales by its letter no. 14/P2-09/87 HRD 1044, dated 7.8.89 in para 11 of which it was stipulated as follows: "11. 19. Be that as it may, the State Government implemented the 1986 U.G.C. Scales by its letter no. 14/P2-09/87 HRD 1044, dated 7.8.89 in para 11 of which it was stipulated as follows: "11. Promotion effected or due to teachers on or before 1.3.89 will not be re-opened. However, in such cases their pay will be revised from the date of their promotion." 20. Further, in clauses 18 and 19 of Appendix 1 to that letter, it was stated as follows: "18. The promotion made or due under any existing scheme before 1.3.89 will not be re-opened. However, in such cases the benefit of revision will be available to teachers only from the date of their promotion. "19. The existing teachers in Universities and colleges where the merit promotion scheme formulated by the U.G.C. in 1983 or any other promotion schemes formulated by the State Government are in operation, will have an option to continue to be governed by the provisions of those promotion schemes provided that they exercise their option in writing prior to their pay fixation under this scheme. They will also be entitled to the designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in those schemes, but the scales of pay will be as follows: (i) Lecturer Rs. 2200-4000 (ii) Reader/Lecturer-(Selection grade) Rs. 3000-5000 (iii) Professor Rs. 4500-5700 21. The implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales through the letter, dated 7.8.89 cannot be said to be wholly satisfactory if the object was to bring the situation in this State fully in accord with 1986 U.G.C. package. At thatime, it seems the idea was to implement the. Career Advancement Scheme of the U.G.C. simultaneously with the grant of the revised pay scales. That, however, was not done and the Career Advancement Scheme could only be implemented in this State, as noted above, in the year 1995. This rendered the provision requiring the teachers to give their option, in writing, prior to their pay fixation, as stipulated in clause 19 quoted above, quite meaningless. 22. Further, even though the age of retirement was brought down to 60 at the time of issuance of the letter, dated 7.8.89, after that letter was issued the age of retirement in this State was once again raised to 62 by re-promulgation of the Ordinances. 22. Further, even though the age of retirement was brought down to 60 at the time of issuance of the letter, dated 7.8.89, after that letter was issued the age of retirement in this State was once again raised to 62 by re-promulgation of the Ordinances. This was presumably in the hope that the State Government would ultimately be able to persuade the Central Government to agree to deviations regarding the extension of the age of retirement and shifting of the cut-off date from 17.6.87 to 1.3.89 for the purpose of implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales. 23. The State Government submitted a detailed statement on 30.1.1991 claiming reimbursement of central assistance amounting to Rs. 31.18 crores in connection with the introduction of the 1986 U.G.C. Scales. The Government of India, however, was not amenable to accept the deviations in this State and would not part with the money unless those deviations were corrected. In those circumstances the Ordinances by which the age of retirement was enhanced were once again allowed to lapse and another Ordinance, followed by an Act, was passed by which the age of retirement was once again brought down to 60 in accordance with the age of retirement of University and college teachers that was in existence at that time elsewhere in the country. The restoration of the age of retirement to 60 years came under challenge before this court in Ranjeet Prasad Srivastava V/s. State of Bihar. A Division Bench rejected the challenge and dismissed the writ petition and the decision in that case [reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 39] gives a clear picture of the controversy relating to the age of retirement at the time of the implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales in this State. 24. The deviation in the age of retirement was, thus, corrected. But nothing could be done with regard to the promotions granted under the Time Bound Promotion Statutes or the fixing of 1.3.1989 as the cut-off date and though this fact has not come in the pleadings in this batch of cases, Mr. Azfar. Hasan, SC VII stated in course of his submissions that on account of this deviation the State Government failed to get from the Central Government the full amount of Rs. 31.18 crores claimed by it, as reimbursement for the implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales. Azfar. Hasan, SC VII stated in course of his submissions that on account of this deviation the State Government failed to get from the Central Government the full amount of Rs. 31.18 crores claimed by it, as reimbursement for the implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales. The Central Government did not reimburse a part of the amount relating to revision of scales of teachers promoted till 1.3.89 under the Time Bound/State sponsored promotion Statutes. 25. It is in the background of the above mentioned statutory provisions, facts and circumstances that the validity of the impugned government decision as contained in the Secretarys letter dated 20.7.2001 is to be tested. 26. Dr. Sadanand Jha and Messrs Vinod Kanth, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Ganesh Prasad Singh all Sr. Advocates appearing for the petitioners in different cases in this batch advanced lengthy and detailed submissions assailing paragraph 14 of the Secretarys letter. Mr. Sushil Chandra Sinha appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 310 of 2002 on behalf of teachers who had superannuated from service submitted that the retired teachers were doubly discriminated against by the government decision. The retired teachers will be equally hit by paragraph 14 of the letter by which promotions granted to them were deemed as nullified but they will not be able to get any respite from paragraph 15 as they were no longer in service. 27. The submissions made on.behalf of the petitioners can be summed up in points as enumerated below: A. Paragraph 14 in the Secretarys letter makes a classification, in the matter of revision of scales of pay, which is patently illegal and violative of the petitioners right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. This is because: (i) All promotion Statutes incorporating the different Schemes, viz. Time Bound Promotion Statutes, Merit Based Promotion Statutes or Career Advancement promotion Statutes were made in the same manner and they all have a common source in law: the schemes acquired enforceable legal status of Statutes on being approved by the same authority, the Chancellor, in exercise of the same legal provisions. No differentiation can therefore be made among the promotees under the different promotion Statutes. No differentiation can therefore be made among the promotees under the different promotion Statutes. (ii) The Classification made by the government for denying the teachers promoted under time bound Statutes the benefits of reversion of pay scales was particularly bad, unfair and unjust as at the time of their promotions there was absolutely no indication that by opting for the time bound promotion Statutes they mighty, at some time in future, incur some handicap or disability. (iii) There was absolutely no difference in the work content and responsibilities of the Readers and Professors promoted under the different statutes and at no point of time any distinction was made among Readers or Professors whether recruited directly or whether promoted under the different Statutes. This was for the first time that an artificial and arbitrary distinction was sought to be made between Readers and Professors promoted under the Time Bound Statutes and others. (iv) In Dr. Devendra NathTiwary V/s. L.N. Mithila University, 1997 (2) P.L.J.R. 1022 this court had the occasion to consider a dispute of seniority between a teacher directly recruited to the post of Reader and another promoted first, as Reader and then as University Professor under the Time Bound Promotion Statutes. In that decision the court examined the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act and Inter University Board Act and came to hold and found that the Time Bound promotion Statutes constituted a valid and lawful means for recruitment/ promotion to the posts of Reader and Professor and further that a teacher promoted under the 1980 Time Bound Promotion Statute would clearly rank senior to a direct recruit appointed to the same post on a later date. This decision would go a long way in demolishing any distinction sought to be made between a Reader and Professor promoted under the Time Bound Statutes and other Readers and Professors. B. BY putting the impugned riders in the letter issued by the Secretary for the implementation of the 1996 UGC Scales of pay, the Government was trying to nullify,by executive fiat valid acts done under legally framed Statutes: (i) The Readers and Professors cannot be granted the revised scale for Lecturers unless and until the promotions granted to them (under the Time Bound Promotion Statutes) were cancelled or annulled and the cancellation or annulment of promotion granted under valid statutes cannot be done by an executive fiat. (ii) To club the readers and professors promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Statutes together with lecturers and to deny them the normal replacement scales in the revised scales of pay is tantamount to taking away the promotions legally earned by those Readers and Professors under valid statutes. (iii) To say that in the revised scales the pay fixation of the Readers and Professors promoted under the Time Bound Promotion Statutes shall be made in the scale admissible to their basic grade (i.e. Lecturer) defies clauses 6 and 7 of the Time Bound Promotion Statutes which provided that on promotion the post held by the concerned teacher shall be upgraded and shall remain upgraded till the end of his service tenure. C. This is not the first time that the government was extending the UGC scales to the University and college teachers in this State. But on this occasion the impugned government decision as contained in paragraph 14 of the Secretarys letter was contrary to the governments own earlier stand: (i) Before this the 1986 UGC scales were approved for teachers of this State in August, 1989. By that time a good number of teachers were already there who were promoted as Readers and Professors under the time bound promotion Statutes as also a few Readers and Professors promoted under the merit based promotion Statutes. The State Government was also fully aware of the disapproval of the time bound promotion scheme by the Central Government and the refusal by the Central Government/ UGC to shoulder any financial liabilities in case the Government of Bihar were to give option to the teachers to be governed by the time bound promotion scheme vide letter dated 15.2.1989 written by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of HRD, Department of Education, Government of India to the Commissioner -cum-Secretary, Department of HRD Government of Bihar (See paragraph 10 of the States counter affidavit). Yet while approving the 1986 UGC scales by letter, dated 7.8.1989 the State Government did not make any distinction between Readers/University Professors who were either recruited directly or were promoted under the time bound or merit based statutes. Para 11 of the letter (and clause 18 of appendix 1 to the letter) only made classification on the basis of the cut off date of 1.3.1989. Para 11 of the letter (and clause 18 of appendix 1 to the letter) only made classification on the basis of the cut off date of 1.3.1989. But on either side of that date Readers/Professors, promoted both under the time bound Statutes and merit based Statutes were grouped together. The material facts remaining exactly the same, there was no reason for the government to take a decision contrary to its own earlier stand. (ii) An attempt to classify separately Readers and University Professors promoted under the time-bound statutes was sought to be made on behalf of the State Government in B.R. Ambedkar Teacherss Assocition and Others V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. in connection with preparation of annual budget for the L.N. Mithila University. In that case this court had constituted a one-man-committee of Mr. Justice Sarwar Ali (formerly Acting Chief Justice of this court) to prepare the annua! budget of the University. Before the Committee the Government took the stand that Readers and Professors promoted under the time bound promotion Statutes could only be given the lower of the two pay scales admissible for the teachers of the respective categories. As the parties were in dispute on this issue Mr. Justice Sarwar Ali referred the matter to this court for a binding decision. The issue was hotly contested in this court before it was finally decided by order dated 21.2.2000 reported in 2000 (2) P.L.J.R. 867. On behalf of the State Government it was strenuously contended that Readers and Professors promoted under the time bound promotion Statutes could only be granted the lower scale of pay fixed for the respective posts. It may be noted that at that stage the Government was not insisting to put the time bound promotees in the lowest scale for Lecturer but had proposed to give them the lower of the two scales fixed for the respective posts of Reader and University Professor. At the time of hearing on that issue apart from the AAG II, the Secretary of the Department of Higher Education had also appeared personally to explain the stand of the State Government to the court. On hearing both the parties to the dispute and on examining all the relevant materials this court did not accept the contention of the State Government and in paragraph 15 of the order it was held as follows: "15. On hearing both the parties to the dispute and on examining all the relevant materials this court did not accept the contention of the State Government and in paragraph 15 of the order it was held as follows: "15. I am, therefore, unable to sustain the objection of the State Government on this issue and accepting the view taken by the Committee. I find and hold that the higher U.G.C. scales of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/- and Rs. 4500- 7300/- (in the case of Readers and Professors respectively) will be admissible to all those Readers and Professors who got promotion or whose promotions were due under the time bound promotion scheme before 1.3.1989 and the lower scale or pay of Rs. 3000/- 5000/- and Rs. 4500-5700/- will apply to such Readers and Professors who got promotion or whose promotion became due under the time bound promotion scheme on or after 1.3.1989." 28. There can be, therefore, no question of making the pay fixation of teachers promoted under the Time Bound Statutes in the revised scales in the lowest grade admissible to Lecturers. D. In many individual cases the Government decision will give rise to highly anomalous results. In the different writ petitions illustrations are given of: (i) Teachers who after being promoted as Readers and University Professors under the Time Bound Statutes received further distinctions as Emeritus Fellowship from the U.G.C. (ii) Teachers who after their promotion as Readers and University Professors under the Time Bound Statutes are now occupying very high position such as Vice Chancellors, or Pro-Vice Chancellors in the different Universities in the State, Chairpersons of various statutory academic bodies such as the Bihar Intermediate Council etc. (iii) Teachers who after their promotion under the merit based Statutes or even after their direct recruitment opted for promotion under the Time Bound Statutes for having advanced their date of promotion/appointment to the higher category or for reasons of personal convenience such as joining another University of their choice. (iv) Teachers who became Readers under the Time Bound Statutes and were later promoted as University Professor under the 1995 Career Advancement Statutes. (v) Teachers who themselves got promotions under the Time Bound Statutes but taught students and/or guided research fellows who later became teachers and got their promotions under the merit based Statutes. (iv) Teachers who became Readers under the Time Bound Statutes and were later promoted as University Professor under the 1995 Career Advancement Statutes. (v) Teachers who themselves got promotions under the Time Bound Statutes but taught students and/or guided research fellows who later became teachers and got their promotions under the merit based Statutes. E. The so called remedial measure as provided in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Secretarys letter will not work and will be of no help to: (i) those demoted teachers who according to the Government were not eligible for promotion as Reader and/or Professor under the U.G.C. norms (ii) those teachers who retired between 1.1.1996, (the date from which the revised scales come into effect) and 20.7.2001 (the date of issuance of the Secretarys letter) 29. in his reply on behalf of the State, Mr. Azfar Hasan, SC VII was very clear, brief and precise. He submitted, with reference to the points raised by the petitioners and enumerated at (C) that the circumstances under which and the manner in which the 1986 U.G.C. scales were implemented were such as those which are already taken note of earlier in this judgment. Learned counsel submitted that at that time the State Government committed mistake in extending the benefit of the revised pay scales ,to the teachers promoted under the Time Bound Statutes and in extending the cut off date (to 1.3.1989) beyond 17.6.1987, the cut off date fixed by the Central Government and as a result of the mistake the State Government suffered a substantial monetary loss because the Central Government denied it a part of the amount ciaimed by it as reimbursement for implementation of the revised U.G.C. scales. Learned counsel further submitted that it was precisely with a view to correct the earlier mistake that para 14 was introduced in the letter issued for implementation of the 1996 U.G.C. scales. 30. Mr. Hasan further submitted, with reference to the petitioners point as enumerated at (B) that the State Government was not questioning the validity of either the Time Bound Statutes and it was quite misconceived to contend that para 14 of the letter, dated 20.7.2001 sought to recall or cancel the promotions granted to teachers under the Time Bound Statutes. 31. Mr. Hasan further submitted, with reference to the petitioners point as enumerated at (B) that the State Government was not questioning the validity of either the Time Bound Statutes and it was quite misconceived to contend that para 14 of the letter, dated 20.7.2001 sought to recall or cancel the promotions granted to teachers under the Time Bound Statutes. 31. Mr. Hasan submitted that all that para 14 of the letter intended to do was to make a classification of teachers in the grades of Reader and University Professor. The object of classification was to reward the meritorious and to leave the non-meritorious unrewarded and the whole exercise was aimed at raising the academic standards in the Universities and colleges in this State while giving their teachers better emoluments. The classification, according to the State Counsel, was justified on the basis of the difference in the merit-based and time bound Statutes for promotion. The merit based Statutes laid greater emphasis on the academic and scholastic achievements of the concerned teacher whereas under the Time Bound Statutes any one would get promotion simply with the passage of time. 32. With reference to the petitioners point at (E) Mr. Hasan submitted that all those anomalies would be temporary and short lived and in all such cases the concerned teacher will have his promotions restored by virtue of para 15 of the letter, dated 20.7.2001. 33. Mr. Hasan stated that the number of teachers as on 1.1.1996 (including all promotees under different promotion Schemes) in the grade of Reader was 5000 and in the grade of University Professor 2000. He further stated that the number of upgraded posts to be available for adjustment were 4182 in the grade of Reader and 1582 in the grade of University Professor. He meant that there will not be shortage of posts for a good number of teachers who would get demoted on the basis of para 14 of the letter and who are likely to be once again promoted by means of para 15 of the letter. 34. Mr. He meant that there will not be shortage of posts for a good number of teachers who would get demoted on the basis of para 14 of the letter and who are likely to be once again promoted by means of para 15 of the letter. 34. Mr. Hasan went on to submit that a large number of teachers who did not even possess the minimum qualifications for appointment as University Professor as laid down by the U.G.C. were able to get promoted as University Professors under the Time-Bound Statutes and the whole idea was to weed out those teachers and put them back in the grade where they belonged as per the U.G.C. norms and all those teachers who possessed the minimum qualifications for appointment as University Professor and who would be demoted on the basts of para 14 of the letter because their earlier promotions were under the Time-Bound Promotion Statutes would have their promotions eventually restored by means of para 15 of the letter. 35. From the submissions of the State, it is manifest that even while assuring that the State Government neither had the competence nor any intention to cancel the promotions granted under the time bound statutes, its decision as contained in para 14 of the letter aimed at doing exactly that, namely to demote teachers promoted under the time bound statutes. The submission of Mr. Hasan clearly means that though the classification will lead to demotion of a large number of teachars, in the case of some the demotion will be for a short while as they will have their promotions restored by virtue of para 15 of the letter. But in the case of some others who do not possess the U.G.C. qualifications for appointment as University Professor and who thus fall out of the ambit of para 15, demotion will be permanent. 36. Otherwise also I fail to see how a classification which denies the replacement scales to a very large number of teachers and puts them in the revised scale admissible to the lowest category of teachers can be said to be anything but demotion in their case. 36. Otherwise also I fail to see how a classification which denies the replacement scales to a very large number of teachers and puts them in the revised scale admissible to the lowest category of teachers can be said to be anything but demotion in their case. The denial of the benefit of pay revision appears to be further bad, unreasonable and arbitrary as no indication whatsoever was ever given to the concerned teachers that their option for promotion under the time Bound Statutes would make them liable to face some handicap or disability in future. 37. Mr. Hasan argued that at the time of implementation of the 1986 U.G.C. scales, it was a mistake on the part of the State Government to allow to Readers / Professors promoted under the time-bound Statutes the same scales as admissible to Readers /Professors directly recruited or promoted under the merit based Statutes. He further contended that the mistake committed by the State Government at that time should not be allowed to stand in its way now that it was trying to correct the earlier error. I am unable to accept the submission. If there was a mistake, it was committed by the State Government not at the time of implementing the 1986 U.G.C. scales.The mistake was committed much earlier in recommending and giving its consent to the time-bound promotion Statutes and now that the mistake is committed, it cannot be done by measures like the present one by putting the Readers / Professors promoted under the time-bound Statutes in the lowest scale admissible to lecturers. Having committed the mistake the Government has no option but to live with its consequences and it must wait till the teachers promoted under the time-bound Statutes finally superannuate from service. Or if the Government is really sincere in its avowed object to improve the academic standards in the Universities and colleges, it may consider introducing a legal provision for compulsory retirement similar to the one as contained in rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code applicable to Government employees. 38. Though Mr. Or if the Government is really sincere in its avowed object to improve the academic standards in the Universities and colleges, it may consider introducing a legal provision for compulsory retirement similar to the one as contained in rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code applicable to Government employees. 38. Though Mr. Hasan did not argue this point (and in my view he was quite right in not doing so), from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it appears that the impugned Government decision as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter was to a great extent influenced by the analogy of the Government employees. The scheme of timebound promotions was made available to the employees of the State Government on the basis of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Committee and the Scheme was withdrawn in the light of the recommendations of the Fitment Committee which were accepted by the State Government in February, 1999. The case of the Government employees being there, it was deemed fit to mete out the same treatment to the University and college teachers. But in doing so the concerned authorities over-looked two every important and significant points of difference. First, in the case of Government employees the scheme of time bound promotions was not extended by any legal instrument but it was granted by a Government resolution. Hence, it was open to the State Government to prospectively recall the scheme by another Government resolution. In the case of teachers, it is seen above, the scheme of time-bound promotions was extended by Statutes having the force of law. Secondly, in the case of Government employees time-bound promotions meant the grant of the next higher scale of pay. In the case of teachers time- bound promotion meant up-gradation of the post itself. For these two reasons, the analogy of the Government employees was quite misconceived and it has led the Government to take a wrong and legally tenable (sicuntenable ?) decision. 39. For the reasons discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that the government decision as contained in para 14 of the letter dated 20.7.2001 is calculated to undo and recall the promotions granted to teachers under the Time Bound Promotions Scheme which, even the State counsel is unable to deny, the State Government is not competent to do by an executive action. The impugned para 14 of the letter dated 20.7.2001 must, therefore, be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 40. Having thus arrived at the end of the adjudication I would like to observe that the controversy coming to this court in this batch of cases made me quite sorrowful. The lot of the University and college teachers in this State is unenviable. The teachers have lost almost all the reverence and respect, good-will and gratitude which at one time they were able to command from the Society. This is because in the public perception the teachers are partly, if not largely, responsible for leading the system of higher education to its present sorry state. It is indeed true that apart from some notable exceptions, teachers are seen indulging in activities and practices which one may find difficult to associate with the pursuit of learning and higher education and excellence of human mind. But it is also undeniable that the teachers in this State do not seem to be getting their due from the State Government. Mr. Azfar Hasan, learned SC VII in course of his submissions eloquently stated that the State Government was extending to the teachers the 1996 U.G.C. scales, modulating it in a manner so as to reward the meritorious and to leave the non-meritorious unrewarded. The object of the State Government was said to be to raise the academic standards of the teachers while giving them emoluments so as to attract better talents for teaching at the University and college levels. Without questioning the sincerity of the Government towards its avowed object one may take note of some other undeniable facts. During the period 1972 to 1999 the employees of the State Government were allowed four pay revisions (on 30.11.1972), on the basis of the report of the 3rd pay revision committee: on 30.12.1981, on the basis of the report of the 4th pay revision Committee: 8.12.1989, on the basis of the 5th pay revision and 8.2.1999, on(the basis of the report of the Fitment Committee). From 1.4.1973 till date the University and college teachers have only got two pay revisions; one with effect from 1.4.1973 and the other with effect from 1.1.1986 when the State Government implemented the 1986 U.G.C. scales by its letter, dated 7.8.1989. From 1.4.1973 till date the University and college teachers have only got two pay revisions; one with effect from 1.4.1973 and the other with effect from 1.1.1986 when the State Government implemented the 1986 U.G.C. scales by its letter, dated 7.8.1989. The implementation of the 1996 U.G.C. scales, as may be seen, now remains stuck in the quagmire of this litigation. And atleast I would not hazard a guess as to when this litigation would see the end and the teachers would got the benefits of the 1996 U.G.C. scales. 41. In the meanwhile with effect from 1.4.1996 an Assistant in the State Secretariat, and in this court, gets the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- and a peon in the State Government has the scale of Rs. 2500- 3200/-. A Lecturer in this State still remains in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 42. An Assistant in the State Secretariat and this court will get a monthly salary of Rs. 8915/- (with D.A. @ 43% on the revised basic scale and other allowances such as H.R.A., C.C.A., transport allowance and medical allowance); a peon in the State Government will similarly get a monthly salary of Rs. 4200/-. But the monthly pay packet of a lecturer in the Patna University will be Rs. 8297/- (with D.A. @ 251% on the unrevised basic scale and all other allowances). 43. Seen In the light of these undisputed facts, the claim of the State Government does not seem to carry much conviction. 44. Coming back to the controversy before this court, it is held earlier in this judgment that the condition imposed for implementing the 1996 U.G.C. scales as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter, dated 20.7.2001 is bad and illegal and it offends Article 14 of the Constitution because it purports to make a classification which is unreasonable, arbitrary and causes adverse discrimination against teachers promoted under the time-bound Statutes. The impugned condition as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence provisions made in paras 15, 16 and all other provisions in the letter corresponding to and arising from the offending condition contained in para 14 will also fall to the ground. The impugned condition as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence provisions made in paras 15, 16 and all other provisions in the letter corresponding to and arising from the offending condition contained in para 14 will also fall to the ground. What, therefore, remains is the decision of the State Government to be given to the University and college teachers in this State the 1996 U.G.C. scales sans the conditions as contained in paras 14,15,16 and any other corresponding provisions in that letter. The State Government is directed to give teachers promoted as Readers/University Professors under the time bound statutes the respective replacement scales like all other teachers and to implement the 1996 U.G.C. scales, in the light of this judgment without any further delay. 45. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed but without any order as to costs.