Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4 (MAN)

Purna Chandra Thoudam v. Manipur University

2015-01-06

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the Manipur University. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was earlier serving as a Professor in the Manipur University and retired in the year 2004 seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of two advance increments in terms of the University Grants Commission letters dated 31.8.2001 as well as 24.7.2002. 3. Certain facts in brief, as may be relevant and necessary for just determination of this case, may be mentioned. The petitioner initially joined service as a teacher in Manipuri Literature on a consolidated monthly honorarium in 1972 in the Centre for P.G. Studies, J.N.U., Imphal and thereafter, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Manipuri Language and Literature in the Centre for P.G. Studies J.N.U., Imphal in 1974. The term of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Professor was extended from time to time. Ultimately, he was confirmed to the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 23.02.1974 vide office order dated 14.02.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme, subject to his producing the notification announcing the award of his Ph.D. Degree, vide office order dated 19.6.1984. Since the promotion order dated 19.6.1984 will be highly relevant, the same is reproduced herebelow. "OFFICE ORDER NO. 348 --------------------- The 19th June, 1984. No. MU/19-10/82/FCY. Under Resolution No. 3 of the Syndicate dated 11.6.84, Shri P.C. Thoudam, Assistant Professor in the department of Manipuri Language & Literature of this University has been promoted as Associate Professor in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-50-1300-60-1900/- p.m. with effect from the 11th June, 1984 (afternoon) under the Merit Promotion Scheme of the members of the faculty, subject to his producing the notification announcing the award of his Ph.D. Sd/- (Th. Joychandra Singh) Registrar" 4. Since the petitioner is claiming certain benefit of advance increments on his promotion as Associate Professor, it may not be necessary to refer to other service records except to mention that he acquired his Ph.D. Degree on 24.5.1984 while in service and was later appointed as a Professor in the Department of Linguistic w.e.f. 2.2.89 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2004. 5. 5. The issue raised in the writ petition is regarding claim of two advance increments to the petitioner as introduced by the University Grants Commission as per their policy decision as communicated to the Registrar of all Universities vide their letter dated 31.8.2001 read with letter dated 24.7.2002. The petitioner claims that the petitioner is eligible for grant of two advance increments in terms of the aforesaid policy decision of the University Grants Commission which the Manipur University contends to the contrary. 6. Before we proceed further, it may be appropriate to refer to the policy decision itself which forms the basis of the claim of the writ petitioner. The said policy decision of the University Grants Commission is contained in the letter dated 31.8.2001 which reads as follows:- "F.5-3/2001(PS) 31 August, 2001 The Registrar Of all Universities Education Secretaries of all States/UTs. (As per list enclosed) Sir/Madam, As you are aware, the UGC, with the approval of Ministries of Human Resource Development had extended the benefit of two advance increments at the time promotion as Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) to those teachers who have acquired/will acquire Ph.D. on after 1.1.96. The issue regarding grant of advance increment to teachers who acquired Ph.D. during service (prior to 1.1.96) was under consideration of the Government. It has now been decided that teachers who acquired Ph.D during service prior to 1.1.96 and who were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per the earlier Career Advancement Scheme may now be given the benefit of two advance increments. These shall however be application from 27.7.98. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr.(Mrs.) Pankaj Mittal) Joint Secretary" 7. There was a clarification of the said letter by a subsequent letter dated 24.7.2002 which is reproduced herein below. "F.5-3/2001(PS) 24 July, 2002 The Registrar (All Universities & State Governments As per list enclosed) Sir/Madam, The UGC vide its letter of even number dated 31.8.2001 had extended the benefit of two advance increments to teachers who acquired Ph.D. during service prior to 1.1.96. and who did not get the benefit of any advance increments as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme. These advance increments were payable with effect from 27.7.98. It is clarified that these two advance increments shall not be admissible to teachers, who were recruited/promoted to a post for which Ph.D. was an essential qualification. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K.P. Singh) Deputy Secretary". 8. These advance increments were payable with effect from 27.7.98. It is clarified that these two advance increments shall not be admissible to teachers, who were recruited/promoted to a post for which Ph.D. was an essential qualification. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K.P. Singh) Deputy Secretary". 8. The aforesaid letter dated 24.7.2002 clarified that the advance increments shall not be admissible to teachers for which Ph.D. was an essential qualification at the time of recruitment/promotion. In other words, if Ph.D. is an essential qualification for the appointment or promotion to a post to which a person who has been appointed or promoted, such increments will not be payable. 9. A reading of the said two circulars/letters of the University Grants Commission would show the following:- (i) The benefit of two advance increments will be given to teachers at the time of promotion as Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who acquired Ph.D while in service. (ii) Such acquisition of Ph.D should be on or before 1.1.1996. (iii) These teachers were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme. (iv) These benefits will be applicable from 27.7.1998. (v) This benefit, however, will not be admissible to teachers who were recruited/promoted to the post of Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade), if Ph.D. is an essential qualification for appointment/promotion to these posts. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, we may examine the claim of the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that (1) the petitioner was promoted as an Associate Professor (which was earlier known as Reader) in the year 1984 vide order dated 19.6.1984, (2) he had acquired his Ph.D. while in service in the year 1984 on 24.5.1984, i.e., prior to 1.1.96 and (3) he had not obtained any benefit of advance increments as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to show that when he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor, Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Associate Professor, the petitioner would be entitled to the said benefit of two advance increments as he acquired Ph.D. during service and prior to 1.1.1996, otherwise not. 11. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme as clearly mentioned in the promotion order dt. 11. Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme as clearly mentioned in the promotion order dt. 19.6.1984 and as per the Merit Promotion Scheme, the requirement of possessing Ph.D. for promotion to the post of Associate Professor is not mentioned at all. It has been submitted that a reading of the said Merit Promotion Scheme would show that while the final selection of persons to be promoted under the Scheme can be made by the University in accordance with its normal procedure, it would be necessary to refer the work which would include research publication, books, reviews, curriculum development, teaching aids, innovation in teaching methods, equipment developed etc. presented by the individual teachers to at least two referees in the subject/discipline concerned and the final selection would be based upon the referee evaluation comments and the unanimous opinion of the outside experts in the Selection Committee. Accordingly, it has been submitted by Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme of Merit Promotion Scheme clearly indicates that Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and promotion could be made on the basis of assessment of research published books/reviews, etc. to be evaluated by two referees. In other words, under the Merit Promotion Scheme as applicable at the relevant time, a person can be promoted to the post of Associate Professor on the basis of academic works publication, etc. though not possessing Ph.D. It has been also submitted that had Ph.D. been an essential qualification, it would have found some reference in the Merit Promotion Scheme which, however, is absent. Accordingly, it has been submitted that Ph.D. was not an essential qualification when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. Mr. Rarry has also submitted that University Grants Commission Regulations of 1982 provides that a person having good academic with doctoral degree or equivalent published work could be appointed/promoted to the post of Associate Professor. Therefore, when the expression equivalent published work has been mentioned as an alternate to the doctoral degree, it follows that the doctoral degree is not an essential qualification and as such, a person without having a doctoral degree but having equivalent published work could be promoted as an Associate Professor. 12. Therefore, when the expression equivalent published work has been mentioned as an alternate to the doctoral degree, it follows that the doctoral degree is not an essential qualification and as such, a person without having a doctoral degree but having equivalent published work could be promoted as an Associate Professor. 12. In response to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the Manipur University, has argued that doctoral degree is very much an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Associate Professor only on the condition that he produces the notification announcing award of his Ph.D. as clearly mentioned in his promotion order dated 19.6.1984. Thus, if the petitioner had not possessed Ph.D. at that time, he would not have been recommended by the Committee for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. He was recommended for promotion only because he claimed to have possessed Ph.D., because of which he was directed to produce the notification announcing the award of his Ph.D. The promotion order is very clear that his promotion as an Associate Professor was conditional on his proving that he possessed Ph.D. Thus, if the petitioner did not possess Ph.D or had failed to produce the notification announcing the award of Ph.D., his promotion to the post of Associate Professor could not have been given effect to. 13. Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor is a good academic record with doctoral degree or equivalent published work as mentioned in the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to be teaching staff of a University or other institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982, and also mentioned in the "Ordinance relating to qualifications and career advancement of teachers of the University, 1988" framed by the Manipur University. He submits that this expression "equivalent published work" must be in the nature of doctoral degree as otherwise he cannot be deemed to have possessed the "equivalent published work" to a doctoral degree, as possession of Ph.D. is a must for appointment to the post of Reader, now re-designated as an Associate Professor. Hence, it has been contended that "equivalent published work" can only mean published work which is equal to a doctoral degree. Hence, it has been contended that "equivalent published work" can only mean published work which is equal to a doctoral degree. He, therefore, contends that the doctoral degree is an essential qualification. It has been submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the Manipur University as mentioned in Para No. 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Manipur University on 29.01.2011 that Ph.D. is the implied qualification for appointment to the post of Associate Professor though the same is not specifically provided in the recruitment rules. According to Mr. B.P. Sahu, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Associate Professor only by virtue of his being a Ph.D. Degree holder. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the Ph.D. Degree is an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the petitioner is not entitled to the said two advance increments. 14. The crux of the issue, therefore, lies in ascertaining as to whether Ph.D. was an essential qualification or not as per the relevant rules applicable at the time when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. In other words, whether a teacher could have been appointed/promoted as a Reader (now re designated as Associate Professor) without possession of Ph.D. If not, it is an essential qualification, and if yes, it is not an essential qualification. 15. We will, therefore, examine the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme as well as the UGC Regulations of 1982 and the Ordinance of the Manipur University framed in 1988. Perusal of the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme as relied on by the petitioner would show that it is merely an additional method of promotion provided to the normal course of promotion by way of giving incentive by emphasising on merit rather than experience and seniority of the teacher. Under this Scheme, meritorious teachers though may be junior can be rewarded with accelerated promotion under the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme, rather than keeping them waiting for their turn to come for promotion in normal course on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and availability of vacancy. In that context, the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme has stipulated certain conditions. These conditions relate to academic attainments by way of research works, publication, authoring of books and involvement in various academic activities which would indicate the meritorious achievements of the teachers which are to be evaluated by experts for being considered for appointment/promotion under the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme. In that context, the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme has stipulated certain conditions. These conditions relate to academic attainments by way of research works, publication, authoring of books and involvement in various academic activities which would indicate the meritorious achievements of the teachers which are to be evaluated by experts for being considered for appointment/promotion under the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme. These conditions, however, do not include obtaining or possessing Ph.D. as a requirement. However, this itself may not be decisive to determine the issue at hand as to whether Ph.D is an essential qualification or not, for the teacher concerned must have also fulfilled the essential qualifications as prescribed under the normal recruitment rules for promotion. The conditions mentioned under the Merit-cum-Promotion Scheme merely are in addition to the requirements under the normal recruitment rules governing the appointment/promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor. 16. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the relevant recruitment rules under which the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor for the purpose of determining whether Ph.D. was an essential qualification for being promoted to the post of Associate Professor. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-A/14 (Colly) to the writ petition the recruitment rules specifying the requirements for promotion to the post of Associate Professor as contained in the notification dated 13.6.1983 issued by the University Grants Commission which lays down the qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University called, "University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to be teaching staff of a University or other institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1982. The Manipur University respondent has not disputed the qualifications stipulated in the said UGC Regulations for considering promotion to the post of Reader which is now re-designated as Associate Professor. The said Regulations provide the educational qualifications required for appointment/promotion to the post of Reader now re designated as Associate Professor which are reproduced herein below:- "READER "Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of being actively engaged in (i) research or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials". About five years' experience of teaching and/or research provided that at least three or those years were as Lecturer or in an equivalent position. This condition may be relaxed in the case of candidates with outstanding record of Teaching/Research. Evidence of being actively engaged in (i) research or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials". About five years' experience of teaching and/or research provided that at least three or those years were as Lecturer or in an equivalent position. This condition may be relaxed in the case of candidates with outstanding record of Teaching/Research. EXPLANATION: For determining "Good Academic Record" the following criteria shall be adopted. UNIVERSITY READER: (i) A candidate holding a Ph.D. Degree should possess at least a second class Master's degree; or (ii) A candidate without a Ph.D. Degree should possess a high second class Master's degree and second class in the Bachelor's degree. OR (iii) A candidate not possessing Ph.D. Degree but possessing second class Master's Degree should have obtained first class in the Bachelor's degree.". The Manipur University also issued an Ordinance called the "Ordinance relating to qualifications and career advancement of teachers of the University, 1988". According to the said Ordinance, similar provisions have been made as follows: "READER "Good academic record with a doctorate degree or equivalent published work in the relevant field. Evidence of being actively engaged in (i) research or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials". Five years' experience of teaching and/or research provided that at least three or those years were as Lecturer or in an equivalent position. This condition may be relaxed in the case of candidates with outstanding record of teaching/research." Under the said Ordinance, the Explanation as provided under the UGC Regulations of 1982 is not mentioned. According to the aforesaid UGC Regulations/Ordinance, a person will be eligible to be appointed/promotion to the post of Reader/Associate Professor only if he possesses "Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work". In other words, to be appointed as a Reader/Associate Professor, a person must have good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. 17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor vide order dated 19.8.1984 w.e.f. 11.6.1984 under the Merit Promotion Scheme and he had obtained his Ph. D. on 24.5.1984, i.e., before 1.1.1996 and it has also been not disputed that the petitioner was not given any benefit of advance increment as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme. D. on 24.5.1984, i.e., before 1.1.1996 and it has also been not disputed that the petitioner was not given any benefit of advance increment as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to show that Ph.D. was not an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the petitioner would be entitled to two advance increments as mentioned in the circular of the University Grants Commission dated 31.8.2001 and clarification letter dated 24.7.2002. 18. The requirement as per the UGC Regulations and University Ordinance is that a person must have (i) a good academic record, (ii) a doctoral degree OR equivalent published work, for being appointed as an Associate Professor. The contention of Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the University that "equivalent published work" must be another Ph.D. otherwise it cannot be equivalent to doctoral degree, however, cannot be accepted. If the "equivalent published work" has to be understood as doctoral degree, as he so insists, this alternative phrase "equivalent published work" will become redundant. It is now well established principle that while interpreting a statute the Court must make every effort to give effect to all the words in a statute since the legislature/rule making authority cannot be held to have been wanting in words or saying something in vain and as such cannot adopt an interpretation which would render any such provision or phrase in a statute otiose. It is well settled that an interpretation which leads to the conclusion that a word used by the legislature is redundant, should not be adopted as the presumption is that the legislature has deliberately and consciously used the word for carrying out the purpose of the statute, by applying the legal maxim "a verbis legis non est recedendum" which means, from the words of law, there must be no departure (see Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, : (2014) 3 SCC 92 ). The Supreme Court in the said case of Hardeep Singh (supra) also observed in para 44 thereof as follows:- "44. No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage. No word can be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the statute. No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage. No word can be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the statute. By construction, a provision should not be reduced to a "dead letter" or "useless lumber". An interpretation which renders a provision otiose should be avoided otherwise it would mean that in enacting such a provision, the legislature was involved in "an exercise in futility" and the product came as a "purposeless piece" of legislation and that the provision had been enacted without any purpose and the entire exercise to enact such a provision was "most unwarranted besides being uncharitable". (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar : AIR 1965 SC 1457 , Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corpn. of Calcutta : AIR 1966 SC 529 , M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd. : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 : AIR 1993 SC 1014 , Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain : (1997) 1 SCC 373 , State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. : (1997) 2 SCC 453 : AIR 1997 SC 151 , Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse : (1997) 6 SCC 312 and South Central Railway Employees Coop. Credit Society Employees' Union v. Registrar of Coop. Societies : (1998) 2 SCC 580 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 703 : AIR 1998 SC 703 .)" Thus, if the phrase "equivalent published work" has to mean only Ph.D. or doctoral degree as contended by Mr. Sahu, there was no need to include the phrase in the statute, as the words "doctoral degree" were sufficient to deal with such a situation. By adding this alternate phrase of "equivalent published work", the rule marking authority was intending to deal with a situation where a candidate does not possess a doctoral thesis. In such an event, a candidate though not possessing doctoral thesis, has such an outstanding or meritorious published work that it is comparable in content and quality with a doctoral thesis to be equivalent to a doctoral degree, can be considered for appointment as a Reader/Associate Professor. The nature of work must match that of a doctoral thesis in merit and quality. The nature of work must match that of a doctoral thesis in merit and quality. The only difference would be the lack of formal award of the doctorate degree. Otherwise, the "published work" is for all purposes equivalent in the standard and degree of accomplishment with that of a doctoral work. It must of such nature that it is no less than a work for which a doctoral degree is awarded. "Equivalent published work" will thus mean such published work, though may not have led to award of a doctoral degree, is of such meritorious nature that it is as good as a doctoral work for which the person could be awarded doctoral degree. Thus, this expression "equivalent published work" cannot be rendered redundant and has to be given a reasonable meaning as discussed above. Interpreting in this manner, the relevant recruitment rules for the post of Associate Professor as quoted above, do not require possession of the qualification of Ph.D. to be essential for appointment to that post. On proper interpretation of the recruitment rules as discussed above, a teacher who has not yet obtained a Ph.D. will still be eligible for promotion, if he has a "published work" of such meritorious nature that it is equivalent in quality and standard as that of a work leading to doctoral degree. This interpretation finds support from other provisions of the UGC Regulations. The "Explanation" found in the UGC Regulations states that for determining "Good Academic Record" for a University Reader, a candidate who holds a Ph.D. should possess at least a second class master degree can be considered. However, for a candidate without a degree, a good academic record would mean possession of a high second class Master's degree and second class in the Bachelors degree. This explanation therefore envisions a situation where a candidate who does not possess a Ph.D. will be deemed to possess a good academic record if he possesses a high second class Master's degree and second class in the Bachelors degree. Therefore, the explanation clearly indicates that there may be cases where a candidate may not possess a Ph.D., yet be considered to possess a good academic record for the purpose of appointment to the post of Reader. 19. Therefore, the explanation clearly indicates that there may be cases where a candidate may not possess a Ph.D., yet be considered to possess a good academic record for the purpose of appointment to the post of Reader. 19. The fact that the petitioner's promotion to the post of Associate Professor was made conditional on his production of certificate of obtaining Ph.D. cannot detract from the position that Ph.D. is not required for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. It may be that in respect of the petitioner the particular selection committee was not satisfied with the works of the petitioner to be equivalent to Ph.D./doctoral thesis because of which the selection committee might have insisted on his possession of doctoral degree. This selection process was confined only to the petitioner, in the sense that the selection committee might not have been inclined to promote the petitioner unless he was shown to have possessed Ph.D. or doctoral degree. Without seeing the certificate of Ph.D., the Selection Committee might not have been impressed with the doctoral thesis of the petitioner or that such work might not have been "published". May be that the petitioner did not have a "published work" which is equivalent in quality to a doctoral thesis, because of which the Selection Committee insisted on his production of the Ph.D certificate. Thus the issue, whether possession of Ph.D. or doctoral degree by the petitioner was essential for him for being considered for promotion is different from the larger and general issue whether the rules required possession Ph.D/doctoral degree for promotion to the post of Associate Professor as an essential qualification. This individual issue of the petitioner and the general requirement of the rules cannot be identified to decide the issue before us, i.e., whether Ph.D. or doctoral degree is an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor or not. The UGC policy decision does not lay down that if a person is promoted to the post of Associate Professor by virtue of his possession of Ph.D./or doctoral degree, the benefit of advance increment will not be given. What the UGC policy provides is that if possession of Ph.D./doctoral degree is an essential qualification for promotion, the benefit cannot be granted, which is thus not individual specific. What the UGC policy provides is that if possession of Ph.D./doctoral degree is an essential qualification for promotion, the benefit cannot be granted, which is thus not individual specific. May be that the petitioner had been promoted only because of his possession of Ph.D. but it cannot change the requirement of the recruitment rules for the post of Associate Professor as discussed above, under which a person, who may not have a doctoral degree, may still be promoted, provided he has a "published work" which is "equivalent" to a doctoral work. 20. That apart, the Respondents in their affidavit in opposition has also clearly mentioned that possession of Ph.D. has not been specifically provided in the recruitment rules but is an implied qualification for appointment to the post of Associate Professor. It may be mentioned that for a qualification to be made an essential one by implication, it must be supported by other provisions of the recruitment rules which would clearly indicate such requirement. Such provisions must unambiguously indicate mandatoriness of such requirement though not mentioned as an essential qualification. However, the University authority has failed to point out such provisions which would make such unspecified requirement of possession of Ph.D. to be essential by implication. Thus, this Court is not willing to accept the plea of the University that possession of Ph.D. is an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Associate Professor by implication at the relevant time. 21. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that possession of Ph.D. or doctoral degree is not an essential qualification for appointment/promotion to the post of Associate Professor at the relevant time when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in 1984. In such an event, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of two advance increments in terms of the UGC letters dated 31.8.2001 and 24.7.2002 as the petitioner fulfils all the conditions stipulated therein. 22. However, a serious objection has been raised by the Manipur University on the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of delay and laches. Mr. 22. However, a serious objection has been raised by the Manipur University on the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of delay and laches. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petition has been filed belatedly and accordingly, hit by delay and laches having been filed with the delay of about 9 years, relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Saikhom Jatishwar Singh v. State of Manipur in W.P.(C) No. 236 of 2010 decided on 26.8.2013 where this Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and accordingly, it has been submitted that the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In the said case of Saikhom Jatishwar Singh(supra), this Court had rejected the claim made in the said petition on the ground that the same had been filed after 8 years by holding that merely because the petitioner had submitted representation earlier, it would not cure the defect of delay. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel submits that in the present case the delay is even more, i.e. 9 years, which can not be cured by his subsequent representations, as such, the petitioner's claim is also similarly barred by delay and laches, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. Mr. Sahu also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. & anr. v. K. Thangappan & anr. : (2006) 4 SCC 322, Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. : (2013) 2 SCC 435 , State of Orissa & anr. v. Mamata Mohanty, : (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Ex.Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & ors. : 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 195. 23. As regards this plea taken by the University respondent that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches, Mr. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted such a plea has been belatedly taken and moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court. Rarry, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted such a plea has been belatedly taken and moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court. It has been submitted as stated in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner that though University Grants Commission had taken the policy decision to grant the benefit of two advance increments in the year 2001, the Government of Manipur (under which the Manipur University was functioning at the relevant time) took the decision to implement the scheme for grant of two advance increments only in the later part of 2004. Therefore, the benefit could be claimed by the petitioner only after the State government took the decision to grant the same which was done in the later part of 2004. It has been also mentioned that at the relevant time, the petitioner was pursuing a Fellowship for two years w.e.f. 01.03.2004 to 30.2.2006 in Mysore for submission of a Research Monograph which he could submit only in the year 2007. It has been submitted that only after he returned from Mysore in the year 2007 he became aware of the fact that the Manipur Government had granted the said benefit of two advance increments and accordingly on coming to know of the same, he pursued the matter by submitting representations to the authorities in 2008 and 2009 and, having not received any response from the authorities, the present writ petition was filed on 11.01.2010. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner was diligently pursuing the matter after coming to know only in 2007 that the benefit of two advance increments was implemented by the Manipur University only in the later part of 2004, that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and petition is not hit by delay and laches. 24. This Court on consideration of the facts of the cases finds that though the plea of delay and laches raised by the Manipur University seems apparently attractive, it cannot come in the way of the petitioner's claim. The fact remains that though the UGC had taken the policy decision to grant the benefit of two advance increments way back in 2001, yet, it was implemented by the State Government only in the later part of 2004. The fact remains that though the UGC had taken the policy decision to grant the benefit of two advance increments way back in 2001, yet, it was implemented by the State Government only in the later part of 2004. Therefore, the petitioner could not have claimed the benefit before the State Government had implemented the same. As regards the subsequent years, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was away in Mysore undertaking certain projects and could return to Manipur in 2007 on completion of the project when he became aware that the UGC Scheme had been implemented by the State Government in the later part of 2004. Thereafter, he submitted his representations to the authorities in 2008 and 2009 after he returned to Manipur in 2007 and having obtained no response, has filed this writ petition in 2010. Therefore, considering these facts, it cannot be held that the petitioner was sleeping over the matter and was negligent in pursuing his claim. Accordingly, this Court decides this issue against the Manipur University and holds that the petition is not hit by delay and laches and therefore, is maintainable. The facts obtaining in Saikhom Jatishwar Singh (supra) are not similar where the petitioner therein did not pursue his claim diligently. No other circumstances other than submission of a representation has been shown in that case for explaining the delay in approaching the Court in that case. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has properly explained his delay in approaching this Court and accordingly holds that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by Mr. Sahu will not come in the way of the petitioner's claim. 25. Mr. Sahu has lastly submitted that allowing this petition at this belated stage would open a floodgate for similar claims. However, this Court is of the view that such an apprehension cannot be a ground for denying a relief which is well founded on law and facts and such similar claims, if made subsequently, have to be decided on an individual basis and examined in the facts and circumstances obtaining in such cases as and when such claims are made. 26. In the result, for the reasons discussed above, the petition succeeds. 26. In the result, for the reasons discussed above, the petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner in terms of the UGC letters dated 31.8.2001 and 24.7.2002 and as per the norms to the petitioner within a period of six months from today.