Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2957 (MAD)

A. Murugan v. Director of Collegiate Education

2014-08-27

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. 1. The petitioner has forward with the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 10.09.2009 confirmed by the first respondent dated 16.06.2010 denying the reader pay. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on the date of filing of the writ petition, he was working as a Reader in the S.T. Hindu College, Nagercoil. The petitioner has completed B. Sc Zoology in 1980 and thereafter post graduation in 1982. He has completed M. Phil in Thyagaraja College, Madurai in April 1985 and joined the 3rd respondent College as Asst. Professor on 09.10.1985. He enrolled for Ph. D. in Bio Chemistry and obtained the same in April 1997 and became a Reader in the 3rd respondent College on 27.07.1998. Two research scholars were going to obtain their Ph. D under his guidance and presently seven students are being guided by him in the doctoral research, was the contention of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner further submitted that by G.O. Ms. No. 155, Higher Education (H1) Department dated 16.04.1999, the Department of Higher Education fixed the pay of teachers and other personnel employed in Government/Aided Colleges and other institutions in terms of recommendations of the University Grants Commission by announcing incentives for Ph. D. & M. Phil holders. The relevant portion of the said G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 16.04.1999 is extracted below – (iii) A Lecturer with Ph. D. will be eligible for 2 advance increments when he/she moves into Selection Grade/Reader. (iv) A teacher will be eligible for 2 advance increments as and when he/she acquires a Ph.D. degree in his / her service career. Explanation – All the incentives mentioned above will be effective only from 24.12.1998, the date of notification by the University Grants Commission. These incentives are, therefore, available to those who become eligible on or after 24.12.1998. Teachers who availed either service benefit or the advance increment benefit as per the existing incentive scheme prior to 24.12.1998, are not eligible to get additional benefit of the new incentive scheme mentioned above. 4. According to the petitioner, as per the above said G.O. either the teacher with Ph. D and in the selection grade will get two advance increments or a teacher at the time of the implementation of the G.O. with a Ph. 4. According to the petitioner, as per the above said G.O. either the teacher with Ph. D and in the selection grade will get two advance increments or a teacher at the time of the implementation of the G.O. with a Ph. D. degree holder, is straightaway eligible for two advance increments and the cut off date was fixed as 24.12.1998. The petitioner being a Ph. D. degree holder in 1997 and had not received any benefit earlier to 24.12.1998, he contended that he is eligible for the said two advance increments from the date as fixed by the University Grants Commission under the aforesaid G.O. 5. The petitioner has further stated that in the proforma, the 3rd respondent College has mentioned at No. 10, the date of placement with grade as 27.07.1998 and the very next column the revised scale of pay in the cadre of placement under career advance scheme – 12000-4200-18300. The 3rd respondent College in a separate statement for fixation of pay for placement of Reader in column 9 fixed the same in the selection grade showing therein the date of awarding Ph. D. as 30.04.1997 and the date of moving into selection grade. As per the proceedings dated 03.05.2000 of the 1st respondent, one of the conditions for granting two advance increments was that the pay fixation for Ph. D degree holder with 5 years as Associate Professor and thereafter presently working as Readers in the fixation of pay was shown as 12000-420-18300 in terms of the ruling 35 under FR 22. The petitioner contended that this was exactly what the 3rd respondent followed while forwarding the recommendation to the 2nd respondent for passing orders regarding the award of two advance increments to him. 6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, by his communication dated 24.10.2000 to the 3rd respondent quoted a wrong scale of pay as 10000-325-15200 instead of what the College had sent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, by communication dated 20.04.2002 to the 3rd respondent passed orders of granting two incentive increments w.e.f. 01.05.1997 by fixing the pay of the petitioner as obtained on 30.04.1997 which is contrary to the communication of the 1st respondent mentioned earlier. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, by communication dated 20.04.2002 to the 3rd respondent passed orders of granting two incentive increments w.e.f. 01.05.1997 by fixing the pay of the petitioner as obtained on 30.04.1997 which is contrary to the communication of the 1st respondent mentioned earlier. The petitioner further stated that he made an application on 06.03.2009 to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi and a reply dated 25.03.2009 was received by the petitioner from University Grants Commission, New Delhi regarding incentives in which at Para 6.3.0, it is stated that a Lecturer with Ph. D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader. Thereafter, UGC sent a communication on 10.07.2009 stating that the petitioner is eligible to the incentives w.e.f 27.07.1998. 7. The petitioner contended that he made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 29.07.2009 bringing it to the notice, the mistake committed in the light of communication from UGC. The 2nd respondent, by the impugned order dated 10.09.2009 reiterated that the petitioner would not be entitled to receive incentives from 27.07.1998 as he was already given incentives from 01.05.1997. The appeal dated 03.06.2010 to the 1st respondent was also rejected on 16.06.2010 stating that the petitioner has been given the benefit of incentives. The petitioner states that in terms of provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 16.04.1999, extracted supra, he is entitled to incentives and he lost the monetary benefits due to wrong fixation of scale of pay. In terms of the communication sent by the 3rd respondent, taking into account of the entire emoluments, the pay would have been properly fixed and should have been given benefit w.e.f 27.07.1998. The petitioner would submit that because of the wrong fixation, the petitioner is entitled to the difference in the amount. Merely because the respondent has given Rs. 6155/- it does not mean that the petitioner has given up his right to claim the correct scale of pay. 8. Even though the Government had not filed a counter, it is contended by the learned Govt. Advocate that the petitioner has been given the benefit of incentives even prior to 1998 and hence he is not entitled to any benefits in terms of the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 16.04.1999, extracted supra. 8. Even though the Government had not filed a counter, it is contended by the learned Govt. Advocate that the petitioner has been given the benefit of incentives even prior to 1998 and hence he is not entitled to any benefits in terms of the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 16.04.1999, extracted supra. Since the petitioner has already been given two increments by way of incentives w.e.f 01.05.1997, he is not entitled to the benefit sought for in the writ petition and that if two advance increments, as demanded by the petitioner is given, it would amount to give more remuneration to him than what he is eligible and it would amount to four increments. 9. Heard both the parties. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a Reader and has got an increment with effect from 01.05.1997. In terms of G.O. Ms. No. 155, Higher Education (H1) Department dated 16.04.1999 and communication of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi dated 25.03.2009, when a Lecturer with Ph. D. moves to Selection Grade/ Reader, he is entitled to get two advance increments. In view of the clear guidelines which is extracted supra, the petitioner is entitled to two advance increments with effect from 27.07.1998. The difference in the fixation will have to be worked out and the petitioner should be given the proper scale of pay with effect from 27.07.1998. The difference in payment/arrears is directed to be released to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the proper fixation of scale of pay will have to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.