Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 551 (GAU)

Ramesh Goswami v. State of Assam

2008-07-31

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner, in essence, entreats for an appropriate writ to the State Respondents for according him the benefit of UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1992. His services, in the meantime, however, have been regularized w.e.f. 15.7.2003, granting him the revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 8,000 to 13,5000 per month. The Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, contending the same to be against the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 22.7.2002 passed by this Court in WA No. 457/1999. 2. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, senior advocate assisted by Mr. R. Ali, advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam, for the official Respondents. 3. The pleaded case of, the Petitioner, in short, is that he is a Graduate in Arts with Hons. in Assamese. He had also passed MA in Assamese (Group B) in the year 1977 securing 46.1% marks. He also has acquired the Post Graduate degree in Assamese (Group A) in the year 1985-86, from the Gauhati University securing 53.4% marks. The result of this examination was published on 5.12.1988. 4. The Nalbari Commerce College ('the College'), was started in the premises of the Nalbari Basic Training Centre in the year 1979 by some philanthropic persons of the locality and the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Assamese therein on 13.8.1979. The College received the concurrence and affiliation of the Government of Assam and the Gauhati University and was eventually brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The appointments of the incumbents holding the post of Lecturers in the College fulfilling the then UGC norms were provisionally approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam by his letter dated 24.2.1993. The table annexed to the letter reflected the names and particulars of the said lecturers. The post against the department of Assamese was shown to be vacant with the remark that the existing incumbent was not qualified. This was purportedly on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess the then prevailing UGC norms. Eventually, the service of the Petitioner was regularized provisionally w.e.f. 1.10.1993 at a fixed pay of Rs. The post against the department of Assamese was shown to be vacant with the remark that the existing incumbent was not qualified. This was purportedly on the ground that the Petitioner did not possess the then prevailing UGC norms. Eventually, the service of the Petitioner was regularized provisionally w.e.f. 1.10.1993 at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,200 per month subject to the stipulation that he would be entitled to the incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200 to 4,000, only after obtaining M.Phil/Ph.D degree within a period of 8 years, failing which his services would be discontinued, This was communicated by the letter dated 7.2.1994 of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam. The Petitioner has averred that the State Government having accepted the revised UGC norms of the 55% in M.A/M.SC/M.Com degree with Honours of First Degree level w.e.f. 15.12.1988/30.12.1988, he was entitled to have his service regularized as he was possessed of the prerevised UGC norms of 52.5% at the aforementioned academic levels, without imposing on him the conditions, as enumerated in the communication dated 7.2.1994. In this regard, he has referred to the letter dated 11.2.1992 of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam addressed to the Commissioner, Education Department, Government of Assam, citing the instances of 16 lecturers, who were similarly situated with a request to regularize their services under the deficit system of grants-in-aid as special cases sanctioning to them the revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200 to 4,000. The letter also contains a reference of other teachers of different deficit colleges with the same qualifications whose appointment had been approved prior to 15.12.1998 and had been allowed the benefit of revised UGC scale of pay. According to the Petitioner, acting on this letter dated 11.2.1992, the concerned lecturers were granted the benefit of revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000, from the date on and from which their Colleges were brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. The Petitioner has also produced other official communications to demonstrate that teachers similarly placed like him had been extended the said benefit. 5. The Petitioner in the above premise, approached this Court with C.R. No. 3671/1006, against the order dated 7.2.1994 amongst others, for annulment thereof and for direction to provide him with the UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The Petitioner has also produced other official communications to demonstrate that teachers similarly placed like him had been extended the said benefit. 5. The Petitioner in the above premise, approached this Court with C.R. No. 3671/1006, against the order dated 7.2.1994 amongst others, for annulment thereof and for direction to provide him with the UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The challenge having been declined, he preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 457/1999, which was disposed of on 22.7.2002, directing the State Respondents to examine his claim at par with similarly situated lecturers. The Petitioners, submitted representations, thereafter and also initiated a contempt proceeding being Contempt Petition (C) No. 402/2003. During the pendency of the same, by the official communication dated 14.7.2003 of the Secretary, Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, the Government's decision to approve his services in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 8,000-13,500 w.e.f. from 15.7.2003 was conveyed. The contempt petition in the above circumstances was closed leaving the Petitioner at liberty to pursue his claim, if reliefs in terms of the decision, in the appeal were not accorded to him. The impugned order dated 9.2.2004 followed rejecting his claim for UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1992, the date of taking over of the Petitioner's College under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. The averments in the writ petition have remained unrefuted in absence of any counter by the State Respondents. 6. However, as is available from the decision rendered in the aforementioned appeal, the stand of the State Respondents, in substance appear to be that the Government of Assam, on 15.12.1988 had accepted the modified revised UGC norms of 55% in Master Degree with good academic record and extended the benefit of revised UGC pay scales w.e.f. from 1.1.1986. As at the relevant point of time, the Petitioner did not satisfy the revised UGC norms, his services were provisionally approved subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter, dated 7.2.1994. The State Respondents have contended that the cases of 16 lecturers referred to the in the letter dated 11.2.1992 were not (at par with that of the Petitioner as the Colleges to which they belong, were brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, immediately after the acceptance of UGC revised pay scales and norms and as they possessed the prerevised norms next before 15.12.1988. As the Petitioner's College had been brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid much thereafter, he was not entitled to claim the identical benefit. 7. The Petitioner in the earlier writ proceeding, in his affidavit-in-reply, inter alia, asserted that the services of one Smt. Pranati Talukdar, whose case had been forwarded along with him and others vide communication dated 16.2.1993, were approved in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000, w.e.f. 1.4.1992 without insisting on the compliance of the two conditions referred to in the letter dated 7.2.1994 by which his services had been provisionally approved at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,200. In the aforementioned writ appeal, the Petitioner also averred that the services of lecturers similarly situated like him having prerevised norms of 52.5% as well as those possessing State relaxed prerevised UGC norms of 47.5% in PG in language subject and 50% at that level in other subjects had been regularized. 8. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that having regard to the backdrop of facts, the impugned order dated 7.3.2004 being not in compliance of the decision of this Court rendered in the aforementioned writ appeal, is liable to be adjudged null and void. As persons similarly situated like the Petitioners had been granted the benefit of the UGC scale of pay with effect from the date(s) on and from which their Colleges had been brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, the denial of the same benefit to the Petitioner is, on the face of the record, arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned senior Counsel, has argued that the impugned order notwithstanding, till date, no interference in any manner has been effected with the service conditions of the other lecturers equally placed like the Petitioner and that they are enjoying the benefit of UGC scale of pay, as sanctioned to them. Mr. Choudhury, has contended that having regard to the stand taken by the Respondents, the impugned order is only a ploy to unfairly deny the Petitioner his due entitlements in law. 9. The learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, in reply, has pleaded that as admittedly, for the date of which the Petitioner's College had been brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, he was deficient vis-a-vis the prevalent UGC norms, he can by no means claim the benefit of UGC scale of pay with effect from that date. 9. The learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, in reply, has pleaded that as admittedly, for the date of which the Petitioner's College had been brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, he was deficient vis-a-vis the prevalent UGC norms, he can by no means claim the benefit of UGC scale of pay with effect from that date. As the State-Respondents are contemplating preview the cases of the lecturers similarly wanting in the UGC norms, but favoured with its (UGC) scale of pay on and from the date(s) of taking over of that College under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, the allegation of discrimination is wholly misplaced. 10. The rival contentions have received the due consideration of this Court. Incidentally, the grievances raised on behalf of the Petitioner in the aforementioned appeal, including grant of UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 1.4.1992, the date with effect from which his College had been taken under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, had been rejected by Division Bench of this Court, the State-Respondents were directed to reexamine his avowal that the services of one Smt. Pranati Talukdar and Others, whose names had been forwarded along with him by the communication dated 16.2.1993 of the Director of Public Instruction (Higher Education) Assam, had been granted the revised scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000, per month without insisting on the covenants as mentioned in the letter dated 7:2.1994, provisionally approving his services at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,000. The official exchanges referred to hereinabove, are not in dispute. By the communication dated 14.7.2003 the Petitioner's services have been approved in the revised UGC scale of pay of Ks. 8,000-13,500 per month w.e.f. 15.7.2003. The Petitioner's contention that the State Respondents have similarly approved the services of other lecturers in deficit Colleges possessed of the pro-revised UGC norms of 52.5%, as well as State relaxed norms of 47.5%/50%, was also taken note of. The fact that the Petitioner before 15.12.1988, the date on and from which the State Government had accepted the revised UGC norms and pay scales, had to his credit the prerevised UGC norms of 52.5% in PG is not in doubt. The direction issued in the writ appeal for a fresh consideration of his case, was passed in the conspectus of the attendant facts responding to his grievance of discrimination. The direction issued in the writ appeal for a fresh consideration of his case, was passed in the conspectus of the attendant facts responding to his grievance of discrimination. The impugned order discloses that the Petitioner's representation for reconsideration of his case has been rejected principally on the ground that a review of the cases of the similarly situated lecturers is being contemplated as the benefits accorded to them had been in violation of the relevant norms. The tone and tenor of the impugned order, however, demonstrate that the same is not in compliance of the direction of this Court as no fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim on merit, has been taken as directed. It is submitted at the Bar that though represented in the impugned order, no action has yet been taken against the other lecturers, claimed to be equally placed like the Petitioner. His contention that the Respondents have taken a step motherly attitude towards him cannot, thus, be brushed aside. It was expected of the departmental authorities to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim in terms of the directions issued by this Court in WA No. 457/1999. The impugned order does not disclose any endeavour in that regard. In that view of the matter, the same has to be interfered with. It is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Higher Education) Government of Assam, to cause necessary steps to be taken for a fresh consideration of the Petitioner's claim in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned appeal. Needless to say, if the authority concerned feels it necessary, it would notify the Petitioner and afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter. As the issue is lingering for along, the exercise, as ordered by this Court, should be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if on a scrutiny, as ordered, the Petitioner is found entitled to the benefits as would be determined, the same would be extended to him at the earliest. The petitions stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.