Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 28 (GAU)

Biswapati Pal v. State of Tripura

2007-01-11

A.B.PAL

body2007
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This is a second round of litigation by four Petitioners who have been persistently advancing their claim for pay scale as per recommendation of the University Grants Commission (for short UGC) for the Demonstrators. All the four Petitioners were initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 175-325/-, which after several revisions was revised to Rs. 1740-3000/- with effect from 1.1.1986. The UGC by its letter dated 8.10.92 (Annx.-P-1) to all the State Governments made certain recommendations for promotional avenues for in-service Demonstrators/Tutors working in Universities and Colleges. The relevant part appearing in paragraph 5 of the said letter relating to the pay scale of the Demonstrators reads as follows: 5. Those Demonstrators/Tutors who have to stay in the elongated scale of Rs. 1740-3000/, and those who has reached the scale of Rs. 2700/- basic pay in the present scale, may be granted on crossing E.B., a personal pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- equivalent to that of Lecturer without any change in their designation and duties. The posts will automatically stand abolished when vacated by them. It may please be noted that the post vacated in any manner by Demonstrators/Tutors may not be filled up and new posts under these categories may not be created. The said recommendation was accepted by the State Government and accordingly a notification was issued on 15.9.97 providing that the in-service Demonstrators who reached the basic pay of Rs. 2700/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- would get, on crossing the E.B. a personal pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- with effect from 1.1.1986 without any change in their designation and duties. It may be noticed here that this personal pay scale of the Demonstrators was the pay scale of the Lecturers in the colleges. Thus the Petitioners received the benefits of the UGC pay scale equivalent to that of the Lecturers as personal to them with effect from 1.1.1986. 2. In 1998 the Central Government decided to revise the pay scale of teachers in the Central Universities after taking into consideration the recommendations of the UGC. The scheme of the pay revision of the teachers including existing Demonstrators/Tutors was formulated as contained in the letter dated 27.7.1998 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development addressed to the Secretary, UGC. 2. In 1998 the Central Government decided to revise the pay scale of teachers in the Central Universities after taking into consideration the recommendations of the UGC. The scheme of the pay revision of the teachers including existing Demonstrators/Tutors was formulated as contained in the letter dated 27.7.1998 from the Ministry of Human Resource Development addressed to the Secretary, UGC. By a separate letter dated 6.11.98 the Central Government requested State Governments to adopt and implement the revised UGC pay scales for teachers in Universities and Colleges in the State with effect from 1.1.1996 with such modification, if any, as may be considered necessary to suit local conditions. Accordingly, the State Government by its notification dated 26.3.1999 adopted and implemented the revised UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996. It would appear from the Said notification that the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- for the existing Demonstrators was revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-. According to the Central Scheme the Central Government would provide financial assistance to the State Government to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure involved in implementing the pay revision for a period of five years from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. During this period State Government would bear the remaining 20% of the additional expenditure. It was made clear that after 31.3.2000 the State Government would have to bear the entire additional liability on account of the pay revision. One more important provision in the said scheme was that the State Government while implementing the revised pay scale would be at liberty to introduce a different pay scale and from a later date only with the approval of the Central Government. The grievance of the Petitioners is that in the said notification dated 26.3.1999 introducing and implementing the revised UGC pay scale for College teachers and demonstrators no mention was made about the Petitioners who were in their personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, though the same pay scale of the Asstt. professor was revised to Rs. 8000-13500/-. The said notification mentioned only about the Demonstrators in the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/-, which was revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-. On 21.7.1999 the UGC addressed a letter to the Secretary, Education of the State Government regarding promotional avenues for in-service Demonstrators/Tutors working in the Universities and Colleges. The relevant provision contained in Para 5 and 6 of the said letter reads thus: 5. 1740-3000/-, which was revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-. On 21.7.1999 the UGC addressed a letter to the Secretary, Education of the State Government regarding promotional avenues for in-service Demonstrators/Tutors working in the Universities and Colleges. The relevant provision contained in Para 5 and 6 of the said letter reads thus: 5. Those Demonstrators/Tutors who will reach or would have reached a stage of Rs. 8300/- in the revised scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- or complete 16 years service in the scale of Demonstrators which ever is later could be granted a personal pay of Rs. 8000-13500/- equivalent to that of a lecturer, without assigning any charge in their designation and duties. 6. The revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- may be provided w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to those Demonstrators/Tutors who are drawing the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4000/-. Thus, it would be appear from the above that only the existing demonstrators in the special category who were receiving the personal pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- would get the personal revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. This category also included those who reached the stage of Rs. 8300/- in the revised scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-, or completed 16 years of service in the said pay scale. But in spite of such a clarification about entitlement of the Petitioners to the personal revised UGC pay scale of Rs. 8000 -13500/- by the UGC which came about four months after the State Government's notification dated 26.3.1999 introducing and implementing UGC pay scale, no attempt was made to clarify as to the revised pay scale of the Petitioners who were in the personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thus they continued to receive the unrevised pay scale while all the teachers, demonstrators and other employees were receiving the UGC revised pay scale or State Government revised pay scale, as the case may be. 3. Aggrieved by the failure on the part of the State Respondents to introduce and implement the revised pay scale for the existing Demonstrators in the personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, the Petitioners approached this Court by means of W.P. (C) No. 606 of 2001 seeking a direction to the State Respondents to grant revised UGC pay scale Rs. 8000-13500 to them as was given to the Asstt. Professors. 2200-4000/-, the Petitioners approached this Court by means of W.P. (C) No. 606 of 2001 seeking a direction to the State Respondents to grant revised UGC pay scale Rs. 8000-13500 to them as was given to the Asstt. Professors. The State Respondents opposed the claim contending inter alia that the Demonstrators being group 'C' employees only could not be given any pay scale higher than Rs. 5500-10700 which was the maximum pay scale for group 'C' employees of the State Government. It was further contended that though the UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was revised to 8000-13500/-, the same was the pay scale of Assistant Professor, who were in Group-A category of employees of the State Government. In this pay scale was allowed to the Demonstrators who are admittedly Group 'C' employee it would create confusion and discontent among other government employees who are in superior/higher posts. The third contention advanced is that though the UGC recommended the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- for the existing Demonstrators receiving revised personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, the State Government did not receive from the Central Government any communication regarding admissibility of such pay scale to these Demonstrators. The final contention of the State Respondents is that the recommendations of the UGC or the request of the Central Government is not binding on them particularly when they are of the view that when such higher pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- would be granted to the Demonstrators it would entail adverse consequence by opening flood gate for claims by other similarly situated group 'C employees working in other departments of the Government. 4. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by the judgment and order dated 12.8.2005 after noticing that the Petitioners were left to stagnate in the unrevised UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- as they were given neither the corresponding UGC pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- nor any corresponding revised scale of pay of State Government employees. This Court further observed that the State Respondents had no hesitation to introduce the unrevised UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- for the Petitioners though that pay scale was equivalent of that of the lecturers. It is to be borne in mind that the Petitioners were Group-'C' employees while the Assistant Professors were Group 'A' employees even at the time of introduction of the same revised pay scale for them. 2200-4000/- for the Petitioners though that pay scale was equivalent of that of the lecturers. It is to be borne in mind that the Petitioners were Group-'C' employees while the Assistant Professors were Group 'A' employees even at the time of introduction of the same revised pay scale for them. Admittedly, no adverse consequence did follow or no floodgate did open for similar claims from other Group 'C employees. It was noticed by this Court that though the Petitioners were group 'C employees the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, equivalent to that of the Assistant Professors was given to them, in consideration of their long period of service, as personal to them only to distinguish them from other Demonstrators who were in the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/-. Thus, the apprehension of the State Government that in the event the Petitioners were given revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- as personal to them would lead to an adverse situation was found to be without any basis. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following direction: The UGC has made it clear that the State Government may grant a different scale of pay but that shall not in any way exceed the corresponding revised pay scale recommended by the UGC and if any other pay scale is considered to be appropriate by the State Government for the Demonstrators that proposal has to be submitted to the Central Government for approval. Placed on the anvils of the above position, the Petitioners, in my considered view, are entitled to the corresponding revised pay scale who are in their personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. but what shall be the revised pay scale for them shall be determined by the State Respondents in terms of the guidelines, as has been explained supra, provided by the UGC and the Central Government which are flexible enough to take an appropriate decision. This writ petition is, therefore, closed with a direction the Respondents to determine and grant corresponding revised pay scale to the Petitioner-Demonstrators who are in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 5. After the above direction of this Court, which was not assailed in appeal, the State Respondents issued a notification on 12.1.2006 extending the State Government revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 5. After the above direction of this Court, which was not assailed in appeal, the State Respondents issued a notification on 12.1.2006 extending the State Government revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/- to Sri Biswapati Pal, Sri Sankar Lai Sinha and Sri Jatish Chandra Acharjee, the first three writ Petitioners herein, who were also the writ Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 606 of 2001 as personal pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 (notionally upto 30.9.1998 and cash benefit from 1.10.1998) as per State ROP Rule, 1999. The said notification has been called in question in the present writ petition by all the four Petitioners. 6. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 7. The first submission of Mr. Deb is that the State Respondents cannot legally extend any State Government revised pay scale to the Petitioners who were given the UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 in view of the provision in the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 (for short Rop 1999) which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996. In Rule 2(ii) of the said Rules it has been provided as follows: (ii) Unless specifically extended under express orders of the Govt., nothing in these Rules shall apply to Govt. servants of the following categories, namely (f) persons drawing pay in the UGC/AICTE pay scales. In the second phase Mr. Deb would argue that when the State Government has adopted and implemented the UGC pay Scale for all College teachers and Demonstrators, there cannot be any good and justifiable reason to deny the Petitioners the corresponding UGC pay scale. Admittedly, the State Respondents has faithfully implemented the corresponding revised UGC pay scale for Asstt. Professors and Principals of Colleges. As regards the Demonstrators who were in the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- was given to them. The Petitioners being in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- constituting a special category of Demonstrators were entitled to corresponding pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, but they have been completely omitted from the notification dated 26.3.1999 introducing and implementing the UGC revised scale of pay. No reason whatsoever has been given about such conspicuous omission which virtually amounted to hostile deprivation and discrimination. 2200-4000/- constituting a special category of Demonstrators were entitled to corresponding pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, but they have been completely omitted from the notification dated 26.3.1999 introducing and implementing the UGC revised scale of pay. No reason whatsoever has been given about such conspicuous omission which virtually amounted to hostile deprivation and discrimination. By adopting the UGC scheme for revision of pay the State Government certainly received 80% of the additional expenditure for the period of five years and, therefore, without any good reason the State Government is not at liberty to partly implemented the scheme leaving one group of Demonstrators i.e. the Petitioners in the personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- out of the benefit of the said scheme. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Respondents would argue on the other hand that the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 12.8.2005 in W.P. (C) No. 606 of 2001 has not specifically stated that the corresponding revised UGC pay scale has to be given to the Petitioners. On the contrary, the specific observation is that the Petitioners are entitled to the corresponding revised pay scale who were in their personal pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-, but what would be the revised pay scale for them shall be determined by the State Respondents in terms of the guidelines given by the UGC and the Central Government which are flexible enough to take appropriate decision. Following the said direction, Mr. Chakraborty, continues, the State Government in order to avoid any possible anomaly decided to grant the said revised pay scale to the special category of Demonstrators who were in the UGC revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The Respondents have chosen for the Petitioners the existing State unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2000-4410A, the corresponding revised pay scale of which is Rs. 6500-12300/- considering that the Petitioners were in the personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Thus, by granting the State revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/-the State Respondents in no way made any hostile discrimination. No argument has been placed how the State revised pay scale could be extended to the Petitioners who are in the personal UGC pay scale in spite of the clear embargo in Rule 2(ii)(f). As noticed above, there is also no argument from Mr. Chakraborty why the State Government is shy of granting the UGC revised pay scale of Rs. No argument has been placed how the State revised pay scale could be extended to the Petitioners who are in the personal UGC pay scale in spite of the clear embargo in Rule 2(ii)(f). As noticed above, there is also no argument from Mr. Chakraborty why the State Government is shy of granting the UGC revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the Petitioners who have been granted UGC unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, equivalent to that of the Asstt. Professors, as personal to them, and if no complication and anomaly did arise at that time for granting same unrevised pay scale to Petitioners and Asstt. Professors why any consequence would follow now if same revised pay scale is granted. 9. As has been correctly submitted by Mr. Deb, the provision of the ROP 1999 cannot be applied to the Petitioners who are admittedly in the UGC unrevised pay scale. They being in the higher personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- (unrevised) constitute as special category. The Petitioners enjoying same unrevised pay scale like lecturers/Asstt. Professors have enough justification as has been given in the Central Scheme, for getting same corresponding revised pay scale though their rank, status and nature of work would not change thereby. It was also specifically provided in the scheme that with the retirement of this special category of Demonstrators in higher personal pay the posts held by them would stand discontinued/abolished. This being the position, the argument that by granting revised UGC pay scale to the Petitioners serious anomaly would arise and floodgate would open appear to be misplaced and misconceived. No doubt, this Court in the aforementioned judgment left the matter to the State Respondents to decide what should be the corresponding revised pay scale for the Petitioners who were getting the unrevised UGC pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. By saying so it was also not meant that the State Respondents would be at liberty to introduce the State revised pay scale for the Petitioners by ignoring the clear embargo contained in the said rules. It was also not intended that the UGC scheme adopted and implemented by the State Government for all teachers and Demonstrators would leave out the Petitioners from the benefit only because they constitute a special category by enjoying a personal pay scale equivalent to that of the Assistant Professors. It was also not intended that the UGC scheme adopted and implemented by the State Government for all teachers and Demonstrators would leave out the Petitioners from the benefit only because they constitute a special category by enjoying a personal pay scale equivalent to that of the Assistant Professors. The State Government was no doubt at liberty to grant a different pay scale, but that must be within the UGC scheme, not a pay scale of the State scheme and while doing so the State Government was required to obtain approval of the Central Government which is admittedly has not been done while issuing impugned notification dated 12.1.2006. In the judgment and order aforementioned this Cost clearly held that the State Respondents cam c in any way deny the corresponding revised pay scale to the Petitioners by raising, solute plea that they belong to Group- 'C employees. The concluding part of the judgment and order in Para 6 may be noticed once again. This writ petition is, therefore, closed with a direction the Respondents to determine and grant corresponding revised pay scale to the Petitioner-Demonstrators who are in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. No person can be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Once the State Government adopted the UGC scheme for the teachers and Demonstrators accepting the Central assistance to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure, there is no discretion left with the State Respondents to deprive the Petitioners enjoying a higher personal pay from the benefit of corresponding UGC revised pay scale. If it was the decision of the State Government to grant the Petitioners a different scale of pay that should have been within the UGC revised scale only and for that purpose sufficient justification should have been given for obtaining approval from Central Government which is a condition precedent contained in the Central Government communication noticed above. 10. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned this writ petition is found to have merit and accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned notification dated 12.1.2006 of the State Respondents (Annx. P-7) is hereby set aside and quashed. The State Respondents are directed to grant the revised UGC pay scale of Rs. 10. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned this writ petition is found to have merit and accordingly the same is allowed. The impugned notification dated 12.1.2006 of the State Respondents (Annx. P-7) is hereby set aside and quashed. The State Respondents are directed to grant the revised UGC pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- with effect from 1.1.1996 to the writ Petitioners if they are in the personal UGC unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- with all admissible consequential benefits within a period of three months from to day. 11. No cost. Petition allowed