Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1056 (ALL)

SANJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-31

K.N.PANDEY, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul and Shri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State respondents. 2. Shri Shyameshwar Degree College, Sikariganj, Gorakhpur is affiliated to the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University. The college is receiving grant in aid from the State Government. On the superannuation of Dr. Suresh Kumar Rai, a Lecturer in History, the Committee of Management notified the vacancy to the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad on 20.2.2006. Since Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 was deleted, the college could not make any adhoc appointment, even if the Commission did not recommend any selected candidate. In pursuance to the Government Order dated 7.4.1998 the college advertised, selected and appointed the petitioner, claiming to be duly qualified and eligible on the post of the Lecturer History, on honorarium on the fixed pay of Rs. 8000/-. His appointment was approved by the Joint Director of Education (Higher Education), U.P. Allahabad on 23.10.2009 in pursuance to the directions issued in Writ Petition No. 48541 of 2009 dated 10.9.2009. 3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for directions to pay to him honorarium as admissible to the post of Lecturer along with all admissible allowance and benefits provided in the Government Order dated 6.1.2009 and Circular dated 14.1.2009. 4. The State Government in the Government Order dated 6.1.2009 in pursuance to directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1566 (SB) of 2007, and 23 other writ petitions in which the interim orders were passed on 3.9.2008 considered the grievance of Lecturers, who were working for a long period of time on honorarium, and decided to pay them dearness allowance and other allowance on the minimum pay of the Lecturer at Rs. 8000/-. The Government Order dated 6.1.2009 provided the payment of allowance to only such teachers, who fulfill the conditions amongst others : (1) the teachers appointed on honorarium, who possess prescribed educational qualification recommended by the University Grants Commission; (2) the teachers appointed on honorarium prior to 31.12.2006 under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998; (3) the teachers, who have been paid honorarium during the period of service; (4) the teachers, who have been continuously working as teachers on honorarium from the date of their appointment (5) .................................... (6) .................................... (7) .................................... (8) .................................... 5. (6) .................................... (7) .................................... (8) .................................... 5. It is submitted by Shri Ramesh Rai that the cut off date (31.12.2006) fixed in condition No. 2, of the Government Order dated 6.1.2009 for giving benefit of allowance, dearness allowance and other allowances to the honorary teachers appointed prior to 31.12.2006 is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and violates petitioner’s right to be given the same treatment as other Lecturers appointed on honorarium. The petitioner is qualified, eligible and was appointed after selections on 13.6.2007, and fulfills all the other conditions. It is submitted that cut off date has been picked out of hat, arbitrarily without any basis. There are large number of teachers working on honorarium basis appointed after 31.12.2006. All such teachers have been arbitrarily discriminated in fixing the cut of date. 6. We do not find any direction in the orders passed by the High Court, to allow allowances to the Lecturers working on fixed honorarium of Rs. 8000/-. It appears that the State Government on its own considered and allowed the benefit of dearness allowance and other allowance at the minimum of pay of Rs. 8000/- to only those teachers, who had completed three years on the date, when the Government Order dated 6.1.2009 was issued. 7. The State is entitled to fix a cut off date. The decision fixing such a date can be struck down only when it is arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Ananchu Asari, (2003) 10 SCC 503 the Supreme Court upheld the cut off date as 1.4.1982 for extending pensionary benefits to the eligible employees. In Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and others, (2009) 3 SCC 35 the cut off date was fixed in respect of those researchers, who were made eligible for absorption after they had put in 15 years of continuous research as fellow/ associate/ project associate as on 2.5.1997 were eligible for absorption. The Supreme Court held that the cut off date was chosen because that was the date on which the Supreme Court, in the earlier round of litigation disposed of the Council’s SLP, wherein the Tribunal’s direction for framing of the scheme was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the cut off date was chosen because that was the date on which the Supreme Court, in the earlier round of litigation disposed of the Council’s SLP, wherein the Tribunal’s direction for framing of the scheme was affirmed. There was nothing irrational in prescribing 15 years service as on the cut off date for Researcher to be considered for absorption. 8. In the present case, the benefit of allowances has been given to only those Lecturers working on honorarium basis appointed under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998 prior to 31.12.2006. The Government Order dated 6th January, 2009 allowing the benefit of allowance to only those, who were appointed prior to 31.12.2006 will thus be applicable to only those, who had completed three years service on honorarium and were continuously working on honorarium basis in the same college. 9. The benefit of providing the allowance to those, who had completed three years, cannot be said to be without any object to be achieved or irrational. It also falls in realms of the making policy by the State Government. If the Government decides to provide allowance to only those lecturers on honorarium, who had completed three years of service, we cannot say that decision is illegal, arbitrary or whimsical. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. ————