Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 703 (DEL)

B. N. LAL v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

2007-04-03

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking inter alia directions to the respondents to grant the petitioner one upward movement after completion of eight years of service from 17th November, 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2,300 along with consequential benefits and arrears. The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Security Assistant in the pay scale of rs. 260-400 (revised to Rs. 950-1500) on 17th November, 1978. Vide order dated 27th December, 1985, the UGC permitted grant of one time upward movement to such employees who had rendered eight years of service on a pay scale or have been stagnating in the same. However, the upward movement was not permitted to be granted to any employee who had already been given the benefit of rationalization of pay scale. ( 2 ) ON 12th February, 1986, the Cadre Review Committee (for short 'the CRC') constituted by respondent No. 1/university (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), recommended rationalization of pay scales of Security assistant, as also many other cadres, as a result of which the petitioner was placed in the rationalized pay scale of Rs. 330-550 (revised Rs. 1200-2040 ). In its meeting held on 18th July, 1994, the CRC recommended that the Security assistants may be granted benefit of one upward movement and that they may be placed in the higher pay scale of Security Inspector in the pay scale of rs. 1400-2300 on completion of eight years of combined service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1200-2040. Vide Resolution dated 27th September, 1995 passed by the Executive Council of the University approval was granted to the recommendations of the CRC to place the Security Assistants in the scale of rs. 1400-2300 on completion of eight years of combined service in the scale of rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1200-2040. While accepting the said recommendations of the crc, the Executive Council took note of the fact that the CRC had recommended that in the case of the Library Attendants, who were in a similar pay scale, it had already been decided to grant them upward movement to the next promotion post pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. In the said Resolution, it was clarified that the upward movement in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. In the said Resolution, it was clarified that the upward movement in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was recommended by the CRC in respect to Security Assistants as personal relief to them. However, the said financial benefit was held to be effective from the date of approval of the executive Council, i. e. 27th September, 1995. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the aforementioned Resolution of the Executive council, the University issued a Notification dated 6th January, 1997 for grant of one upward movement in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to the Library Attendants by clubbing the scale of Rs. 825-200 and Rs. 950-1400. At the same time, vide office Order dated 5th February, 1997, the University granted one upward movement in the scale of the Library Attendants with effect from the date of their eligibility and issued pay fixation orders in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned action of the University in restricting the grant of arrears of pay fixation in respect to the petitioner with effect from the date of approval of the Executive Council from 27th september, 1995 as against the Library Attendants who were granted one upward movement in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from the date of their eligibility after combining the service in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 and rs. 950-1200, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid action of the University is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india inasmuch as the petitioner has been discriminated against in grant of arrears to them as compared to the Library Attendants who are also similarly placed and have also been granted the same pay scale on the same basis. It was further submitted that the benefit of one upward movement to the petitioner with effect from the date of his eligibility is a colourable exercise of power by the University, as the guidelines of the University itself mandated benefit of one upward movement to the petitioner as a consideration for his eight years on a particular pay scale. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed and joined duty as a Security Assistant on 17th november, 1978 in the pay scale of Rs. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed and joined duty as a Security Assistant on 17th november, 1978 in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and as a result of the rationalization, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 1st January, 1986 and that the petitioner completed eight years of combined service on 17th November, 1986. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to grant of one upward movement in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 from 1st January, 1986 and if not from the said date, then alteast with effect from 17th November, 1986 when he completed eight years of combined service and as a consequence thereof, he is also entitled to receive arrears of salary with effect from 1st January, 1986 or from 17th November, 1986 and not from 27th September, 1995 when he was granted the actual benefit. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, counsel for the University submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable as there can be no comparison with the case of the Library Attendants in view of the fact that the case of each category is different and not similar. It was further submitted that all posts and scales of pay are sanctioned by the UGC and the circular issued by the UGC in terms of the one upward movement scheme clearly provided that those who had taken benefit of one upward movement in the scale in the process of rationalization of fixation of salary or removal of disparities, is not entitled to one upward movement. For the said reason, the petitioner was not entitled to one upward movement and the University on its own gave him the said benefit as a personal relief. ( 7 ) REFERENCE was also drawn by the counsel for the University to the letter dated 4th February, 1994 issued by the UGC to the University wherein the UGC approved grant of one upward movement to the Library Attendants in the scale from the date approved by the UGC, i. e. 1st April, 1992, subject to an undertaking to be taken from the Library Attendants that they would refund the excess amount of arrears received by them. It was submitted that accordingly, vide Notification dated 27th April, 1994, the University decided to extend the benefit of the scale of Rs. It was submitted that accordingly, vide Notification dated 27th April, 1994, the University decided to extend the benefit of the scale of Rs. 260-350 on personal basis to the Library Attendants with effect from 1st January, 1973 subject to the condition that no arrears shall be paid to them from 1st January, 1973 to 31st March, 1992 and that the university will recover arrears, if any, paid in disregard of the UGC advice. After the receipt of the said undertaking, the University issued a corrigendum on 27th September, 2000 extending the financial benefit to Library Attendants for grant of one upward movement in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from 1st April, 1992. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the University stated that the petitioner was informed of the grant of one upward movement scale vide Office Order dated 7th february, 1996 wherein it was stated that the financial benefit will be given with effect from 27th September, 1995 and the petitioner was asked to convey his acceptance of the same, which he did vide his letter dated 15th February, 1996 and having accepted the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It was also contended that in his letter dated 14th July, 1973 whereby the petitioner had desired one upward movement, he did not ask for payment of any salary as per the revised scale but only claimed that his pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 be converted into Rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 1st January, 1986 or 17th november, 1986 and that as the said relief had already been granted by the university, nothing further was payable to the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN rebuttal to the aforesaid arguments, counsel for the petitioner asserted that interpretation of the letter dated 14th July, 1993 by the University was incorrect and inaccurate for the reason that by the said letter, the petitioner had made a statement that he be granted the pay scale of rs. 1400-2300 with effect from 1st January, 1986 or 17th November, 1986 thus implying that he was entitled to the payment of financial benefit on revision from the aforesaid dates. 1400-2300 with effect from 1st January, 1986 or 17th November, 1986 thus implying that he was entitled to the payment of financial benefit on revision from the aforesaid dates. In respect of the contention of the counsel for the university that grant of one upward movement to the petitioner was personal to him, counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court to the order dated 5th February, 1997 issued by the University in respect of the Library attendants which shows that they were also granted one upward movement as personal to them. ( 10 ) I have heard the counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the relevant records, including various documents referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels. ( 11 ) THE issue involved in the present writ petition is confined to the date of entitlement of the petitioner to the financial benefit of one upward movement by the completion of eight years of combined service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to Rs. 1200-2040. While the University claims that the petitioner is entitled to the said financial benefit with effect from the date when approval was granted by the Executive Council of the University, i. e. 27th september, 1995, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the payment of arrears of the said financial benefit from the date he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, or from the date of implementation of one upward movement, i. e. with effect from 1st January, 1986 or at least, with effect from the date of completion of certain years of service which in the case of the petitioner was eight years from 17th November, 1978, the date of his appointment, which will take him to 17th November, 1986. ( 12 ) THE claim of the University that the petitioner is not entitled to one upward movement and because the University gave him the said benefit of its own accord as personal relief to him, he cannot claim parity with similarly placed employees, is misconceived. A perusal of the recommendations of the CRC itself demolishes the said plea taken by the University. In fact, the said recommendations have also been referred to in the Resolution dated 27th september, 1995 passed by the Executive Council of the University, which is self-explanatory. A perusal of the recommendations of the CRC itself demolishes the said plea taken by the University. In fact, the said recommendations have also been referred to in the Resolution dated 27th september, 1995 passed by the Executive Council of the University, which is self-explanatory. The said Resolution is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "the Security Assistants requested that upon completion of eight years of combined service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and 1200-2040, they may be given upward movement in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300, as the University recruitment and promotion rules provide for 50% promotion on seniority-cum-merit from Security Assistants to the post of Security Inspector in the pay scale of rs. 1400-2300. Also, in the case of Library Attendants, who are in the scale of rs. 950-1500, it has already been decided to give them upward movement to the next promotion post scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Keeping this in view, the CRC recommended that the Security Assistants may be given upward movement in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300, as personal relief to them, upon completion of eight years combined service in the pay scales of Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1200-2040, as the financial benefits shall accrue to them w. e. f. the date of approval of the E. C. " ( 13 ) THE University's stand insofar as it seeks to distinguish the date of grant of financial benefit to the petitioner herein working in the post of Security Asstt. , who has been compared with the Library Attendants for the purpose of grant of one upward movement to the next promotion post with effect from the date of approval of the Executive Council, while granting the same benefit in the case of Library Attendants, from the date of their eligibility, i. e. after rendering eight years of combined service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500, is misconceived and untenable. The distinction sought to be drawn between the date of grant of arrears of financial benefit in the case of the security Assistants as against the Library Attendants has no rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 950-1500, is misconceived and untenable. The distinction sought to be drawn between the date of grant of arrears of financial benefit in the case of the security Assistants as against the Library Attendants has no rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The petitioner is justified in claiming that once the University had accepted the recommendations of the CRC that the security Assistants may also be granted benefit of financial benefits and they may be placed in the higher pay scale of Security Assistants, i. e. in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 on completion of eight years combined service in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1200-2040, there is no justification for the university to restrict the entitlement of the petitioner to the grant of arrears of pay from the date of the Executive Council, granting approval to the recommendations of the CRC. Once the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of rs. 1200-2040 as a result of rationalization with effect from 1st January, 1986 in terms of the recommendations of the CRC, the grant of financial benefit to the petitioner ought not to have been curtailed by the University, so as to have held him entitled to the said relief from the date of grant of approval to the recommendations of the CRC by the Executive Council of the University, i. e. w. e. f. 27th September, 1995. The said relief automatically relates back to the date of implementation of the one upward movement scheme, i. e. with effect from 1st January, 1986. ( 14 ) COMING next to the plea of the University that even if the court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get the financial benefit of one upward movement at all, then the University may not be directed to pay any arrears prior to 14th July, 1993, i. e. prior to the date when the petitioner represented to the University seeking one upward movement, and in any case, not prior to 1st April, 1992, i. e. , the date from which library Attendants were granted the arrears. ( 15 ) TAKING into consideration the fact that the petitioner is seeking parity in receipt of financial benefit payable to him on the basis of the one upward movement scheme and the said benefit was given by the University to the Library Attendants with effect from 1st April, 1992, in terms of the letter dated 4th February, 1994 issued by the UGC to the University, it is directed that the petitioner shall also be entitled to grant of one upward movement in terms of the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University, but with effect from 1st April, 1992, the date from which Library Attendants were granted the arrears. ( 16 ) THE writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties are left to bear their own costs.