Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1253 (MP)

B. S. Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2012-12-04

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT : This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 25-10-2004 (Annexure P-26) and the directions to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner after granting Senior Pay Scale to him in the pre revised pay scale of Rs. 700-1100/- with effect from 19-4-1981 and to further grant the benefit of revision of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- w.e.f. 1-8-1987 and all the payment of arrears of salary after revision of his salary in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-180007- w.e.f. 1-1-1986. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian in the College which was fully receiving the Grant-in-Aid from the State Government. Since the post of Librarian is equated with the post of Lecturer (now redesignated as Assistant Professor), the petitioner was also entitled to the grant of benefit of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale in terms of the pay scales prescribed by the M.P. Uchh Siksha Anudan Ayog (in short, 'the Commission'). It is contended that when such a claim was made screening of the case of the petitioner was done. The Committee and also the Commission both have recommended the grant of such benefit to the petitioner but by impugned order, the same was denied. Therefore the writ petition is required to be filed. 2. In response to the allegations made by the petitioner, it is contended that the relaxation in educational qualifications as claimed by the petitioner was not available to him in view of the fact that the rules were framed by the State Government governing the services of the employees and officers of the Higher Education Department. The very same rule would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not qualified as prescribed for the post of Librarian, he would not entitled to the benefit of Senior Pay Scale. It is further contended that scheme of Pay Revision formulated by the Government of India contains the provisions of career advancement which are available only to those who have qualified the conditions mentioned in the said scheme. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling such conditions, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Senior Pay Scale. It is further contended that scheme of Pay Revision formulated by the Government of India contains the provisions of career advancement which are available only to those who have qualified the conditions mentioned in the said scheme. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling such conditions, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Senior Pay Scale. It is further contended that the similar is provision for the purposes of grant of Selection Grade Pay Scale and since the petitioner was not having the qualification for such post again he was not entitled to grant of benefit of Selection Grade Pay Scale. 3. Refuting the allegations made in the return, the petitioner has filed the documents to indicate that he has taken part in the training so imparted. He has taken part in the refresher course and since he has qualified in all, he could not have been denied the benefit of Senior and Selection Grade Pay Scale. It is put forth that relaxation was granted in the matter of educational qualification by the State Government to those who were appointed prior to 1-7-1969 and since the petitioner was one who was appointed prior to this date, the benefit was available to him. In view of the this, there was no cogent reason to refuse to accept the report of the Screening Committee and to discard the recommendation of the Commission. 4. The other respondents namely, the college and the society running the college have also filed the return but they have simply said that the responsibility is of the State Government and if the amount is made available, the same would be paid to the petitioner as per his entitlement. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed on 1-8-1966 as is evident from Annexure P-1. It is also not in dispute that the relaxation was granted by the State Government vide order dated 14-7-1979/20-8-1979 wherein it was specifically said that the Librarians who were in service on 1-7-1969 are granted the exemption from having the qualification of Post Graduation in the Library Science and one year Diploma in Library Science for the purposes of grant of UGC pay scale of Rs. 300-25-600/-. 300-25-600/-. Thus, even if the rules were made or amended by notification Annexure R-1 which was made applicable with effect from 1-7-1969, the petitioner was not going to be affected at all inasmuch as the rules were made though retrospective but from a particular date and the petitioner was appointed prior to the date of coming into force of the rules. Since there was no specific provision made, the relaxation though issued in reference to some other notification would remain operative till it is withdrawn. From the other document filed along with the writ petition again, it is clear that the same notification was reiterated and was re-enforced. This fact is clear from perusal of the order dated 29-7-1983. At any rate, the denial of the pay scale to the petitioner only because of making of prospective rule from the date after the appointment of the petitioner, would not affect his service condition and the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit as were granted to him under the notification dated 14-7-1979/20-8-1979. It is also clear from the perusal of the record that when the pay of the petitioner was revised, the same was referred to the higher authorities and the said authorities have duly accepted the same as correct. On 15-9-1979, the pay fixation of the petitioner in terms of the notification issued by the State Government, was done in the pay scale of Rs.300-600/- and the same was duly approved by the Commission on 1-3-1980. If the petitioner was said to be inducted in the said pay scale which was prescribed with the recommendation of the Commission, any benefit accrued under the scheme would not have been denied to him. Consequently, the petitioner was also entitled to those benefit which were available to the similarly situated employees/officers who were receiving the benefit of revised pay scale recommended by the Commission. 7. The Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education of Government of India made a scheme of pay revision. The said scheme was duly approved by University Grant Commission. As is referred hereinabove, the pay scale were also affirmed by the UGC. The scheme prescribed career advancement. The relevant provision of the scheme are incorporated in Annexure R-2 which reads thus: "11. Every Lacturer will be eligible for placement in a senior scale of Rs. The said scheme was duly approved by University Grant Commission. As is referred hereinabove, the pay scale were also affirmed by the UGC. The scheme prescribed career advancement. The relevant provision of the scheme are incorporated in Annexure R-2 which reads thus: "11. Every Lacturer will be eligible for placement in a senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 if he/she has: (a) completed 8 years of service after regular appointment or has reached a basic pay of Rs.2800/-, whichever is earlier; (b) obtained a M. Phil, or Ph.D. Degree, as the case may be, or has to his/her credit research work of equivalent standard; (c) attended two refresher courses/summer institutes each of at least four weeks duration; and (d) consistently satisfactory performances apprasial reports. 12. The requirement of participation in two refresher courses/summer institutes would be suitably relaxed till arrangements for course/institutes are made. The requirement of M.Phil./Ph.D. will not apply in the case of Lecturers who were appointed prior to the implementation of the 1973 revision. Explanation : (i) All Lecturers in the existing scale of Rs. 700-1600, who have completed 8 years of service on 1-1-1986, will be eligible for placement in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000 in accordance with the provisions in paras 11 and 12, the benefit of the relaxation mentioned in the explanation under para 10 will also be available to them. (ii) A regular and systematic appraisal of the performances of teachers should become operational from the academic year 1988-89, till then, the existing screening mechanisms/selection procedure will apply for the placement in the Senior Scale. There will be no relaxation in any case from the requirement of consistently satisfactory performance appraisal for placement in the Senior Scale beyond 1989-90. 13. Every Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for placement in a Selection Grade of Rs. 3700-5300 if he/she has (a) completed 12 years of service in the senior scale or has reached a basic pay of Rs. 43757- whichever is earlier; (b) attended two refresher courses/summer institutes after placement in the senior scale; and (c) consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports. 14. Placement in the Selection Grade will be through a process of selection by a Section Committee to be set up under the Statutes of the University concerned or other similar Committees set up by the appointing authorities in accordance with the guidelines to be laid down by the U.G.C. 15. 14. Placement in the Selection Grade will be through a process of selection by a Section Committee to be set up under the Statutes of the University concerned or other similar Committees set up by the appointing authorities in accordance with the guidelines to be laid down by the U.G.C. 15. Lecturers in the existing Selection Grade of Rs. 1200-1900 in Colleges will be eligible for placement at the appropriate stage in the revised Selection Grade of Rs. 3700-5300 in accordance with the pay fixation formula under this scheme, "this relaxation envisaged in the case of Lecturers for placement in the Senior Scale in respect of participation in refresher courses/summer institutes as well as performance appraisal will also apply to placement in the Selection Grade." 8. Thus, scheme if minutely perused, the same reflects that those who fulfils the conditions and those who were enjoying the relaxation were entitled to be considered for grant of Senior and Selection Grade Pay Scale in terms of the scheme on completion of the requisite years of service. The petitioner has categorically submitted that he has taken part in the refresher course and had completed the other requisite qualification and if the claim is considered with relaxation, the petitioner would be one who was fulfilling all the norms prescribed for grant of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale. This being so, the claims of the petitioner were considered and the screening committee specifically recommended that the petitioner be granted the said benefit. These facts are categorically mentioned in the proceedings referred to hereinabove. The Committee was constituted in terms of the instructions issued by the respondents State on 17-2-1989. After considering the claim of the petitioner, the recommendation were made on 30-5-1992 (Annexure P-13) and the very same recommendation were referred by the Commission on 30-6-1992. Similarly the petitioner was again considered for grant of Selection Grade Pay Scale w.e.f. 1-8-1982 and his name was included in the list recommended by the Commission on 25-6-1992. These documents have been placed on record to indicate that proper recommendation were made. 9. As against this, the respondents have said that the claim of the petitioner was not be considered at all as he was not fulfilling the norms prescribed and thus the order was rightly issued on 25-10-2004. Nothing has been said as to why the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 9. As against this, the respondents have said that the claim of the petitioner was not be considered at all as he was not fulfilling the norms prescribed and thus the order was rightly issued on 25-10-2004. Nothing has been said as to why the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The justification as done in the return is not acceptable in view of the foregoing discussion. Even after coming into force of the scheme subsequently made, which has been explained herein above, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-10-2004 (Annexure P-26) is hereby quashed. The screening of the claim of the petitioner for grant of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale has already been done by the appropriate Committee and by the Commission as has been referred hereinabove. The respondents are therefore directed to implement the recommendations of the screening committee and the Commission for the purposes of grant of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale to the petitioner, from the date the same was found admissible to the petitioner. Let the salary of the petitioner be revised and all the arrears of salary be paid to him within three months from the date of order. If the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and any retiral dues were to be paid to him the same be also revised and all the arrears be paid to him within the aforesaid period. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.