Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 113 (UTT)

Achal K. Goyal v. Gurukul Kangri University

2019-02-21

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to revise and re-fix his pay scale in the pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000 at par with the revised Reader’s scale of pay, as re-fixed by the U.G.C. by implementing the 6th Pay Commission recommendations; and a mandamus commanding the respondent to give the balance amount of arrears, while re-fixing and revising the petitioner’s pay scale in the pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000 (Reader’s scale). 2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that, on a Computer Centre being established in the respondent-University, an advertisement was issued on 27.05.2000 inviting applications for various posts including that of a System Manager, for the Computer Centre in the Reader’s Scale. The petitioner was appointed as a Systems Manager vide proceedings dated 28.09.2000; by the appointment letter issued by the Registrar, the petitioner was informed that he was being placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300. It is the petitioner’s case that, consequent on his appointment as a Systems Manager, he also used to teach graduate and Post-Graduate students (B.Sc. Computers, P.G. Diploma in Computer Science, M.C.A., M.Sc. etc.), along with other duties and job responsibilities; he is, presently, the head of the Computer Centre of the respondent-University; even before the 6th Pay Commission recommendations were implemented, the respondent-University had enhanced the pay-scale of Readers of the University, including the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 14000/-w.e.f. 24.01.2009 as an interim measure; he was given this benefit of Rs. 14,000/- since he was in the equivalent cadre of a Reader; the UGC implemented the 6th Pay Commission recommendations in the year 2009, and the first and second installment of arrears was given to all employees as an interim measure; the petitioner was also given the first and second installment of arrears, corresponding to the Reader’s pay; despite his repeated requests, he was not given the third installment worth Rs. 64000/-; a letter was sent to him by the respondent-University on 22.02.2012 regarding re-fixing his pay-scale from 12000-420-18300 to 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; the re-fixation was done in terms of the UGC guidelines dated 30.09.2011; he submitted his objections thereto, and sought re-fixation of his pay, in the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; the re-fixation was done in terms of the UGC guidelines dated 30.09.2011; he submitted his objections thereto, and sought re-fixation of his pay, in the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/-, in the light of table no. 4 of the UGC guidelines applicable to the Reader’s grade; the second respondent, vide letter dated 30.04.2012, informed him that his pay-scale has been amended and re-fixed in accordance with the UGC letter dated 30.09.2011; re-fixation and revision of pay-scale of the petitioner is illegal since such re-fixation was applicable only to non-teaching staff; as he was appointed as a academic i.e. in a non-vocation academic post in Reader’s scale, his post could not have been treated as a non-academic post, or he as a non-teaching staff of the University; the staff of the Computer Centre in the University hold non-vocation academic posts, though their timings and holidays are as those of administrative posts in the University; they are, however, given other benefits like study leave, participation in conferences etc. like that of teachers; the guidelines of the UGC dated 30.09.2011 apply to non-teaching staff Class-A posts of the University, and it is not applicable to the post held by the petitioner which is a non-vocation academician post; and System Managers, in other Central Universities and Research Laboratories, are re-designated as Senior Scientist, and have been fixed in the pay-band of Rs. 37400-67000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/-. 3. The stand of the respondent-University, on the other hand, is that the UGC had accorded sanction for installing a Computer Centre at a total cost of Rs. 10 lacs; the petitioner was appointed as a System Manager in the pay-scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300; the subject Computer Centre is a Level-A Computer Centre, and the petitioner was posted as a System Manager therein; the post of System Manager is a non-teaching post; the letter of the Government of India dated 04.06.2009, regarding revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadre in Universities and Colleges and also for the post of Registrar/Deputy Registrar, clearly suggests that the pay-scale of Reader’s, which was 12000-420-18300, had been revised in the pay-scale of 15600-39100 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-; the same pay-scale, in the matter of non-teaching personnel, carries the Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-; the same pay-scale, in the matter of non-teaching personnel, carries the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; UGC had framed Regulations for teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges, in which the post of System Manager is not included, meaning thereby that the said post is a non-teaching post; the UGC had, in its communication dated 30.09.2011, directed that the revised pay band of Rs. 12000-18300 was Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-; while the petitioner was placed in the Reader’s pay-scale, he was not appointed as a Reader; he was, therefore, not entitled to be placed in the pay-bands applicable, under the 6th Pay Commission, for teaching staff; and he would be governed by the pay-bands of non-teaching staff. 4. The UGC recommendations, for teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges, do not include the post of System Manager. It does appear, therefore, that the UGC has not considered the post of a System Manager to be a teaching post. While it is, no doubt, true that the advertisement issued on 27.05.2000, by the respondent-University stipulates that the post of System Manager in the Computer Centre would be in the Reader’s scale, that does not mean that the post of System Manager was required to be treated as a teaching post or as the post of a Reader. What the advertisement stipulated is only that the person appointed as the System Manager would be extended the then existing Reader’s scale of pay. 5. Consequent upon implementation of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, a Reader (one among the teaching posts) with more than 3 years’ services was placed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/-. Employees in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 12000-18000, and who formed part of the non-teaching staff, were placed in the pay-band of Rs. 15600-39100 in terms of the notification issued by the Government of India. As noted hereinabove, the pre-revised pay-scale of the petitioner of Rs. 12000-420-18300 was at slight variance with the pre-revised pay-scale of Central Government employees of Rs. 12000-18000. It is in this context that the letter dated 30.09.2011 of the Government of India, addressed to the respondent-University, had stated that the pay-scale of Rs. As noted hereinabove, the pre-revised pay-scale of the petitioner of Rs. 12000-420-18300 was at slight variance with the pre-revised pay-scale of Central Government employees of Rs. 12000-18000. It is in this context that the letter dated 30.09.2011 of the Government of India, addressed to the respondent-University, had stated that the pay-scale of Rs. 12000-18300 was an anomalous scale of pay, and had directed that it be aligned with the nearest equivalent scale of Central Government employees i.e. Rs. 12000-18000 which, on revision, transformed to the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-. As the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18000 was revised, in terms of the 6th Pay Commission recommendations, only to 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/-, the petitioner, who was treated as a non-teaching staff by the respondent-University, was rightly extended this pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600, and not the revised pay-scale of a Reader of Rs. 3740067000 with Annual Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/-. 6. The mere fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post of System Manager, and was extended the then Reader’s scale of pay, would not, by itself, make him a Reader. It is not even the petitioner’s case that the University had, in appointing him as a System Manager, informed him that he would be treated as a Reader, and as forming part of the teaching staff. The petitioner’s claim to be extended the pay-scale of a Reader does not merit acceptance in as much as he was only extended the then existing pay-scale of a Reader, and was not appointed as a Reader. His claim of being extended the pay-scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with Annual Grade pay of Rs. 9000/-(which are the revised pay scales applicable to a Reader) is, therefore, not tenable. 7. The fact, however, remains that though the petitioner was appointed as a System Manager which, according to the respondent-University, is a non-teaching post, his services were utilized for more than a decade to teach computer courses to under-graduate and postgraduate students of the respondent-University. 9000/-(which are the revised pay scales applicable to a Reader) is, therefore, not tenable. 7. The fact, however, remains that though the petitioner was appointed as a System Manager which, according to the respondent-University, is a non-teaching post, his services were utilized for more than a decade to teach computer courses to under-graduate and postgraduate students of the respondent-University. Along with his supplementary affidavit dated 18.11.2018, the petitioner has enclosed the certificate dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Professor & Head of the Department of Chemistry, and the certificate dated 18.01.2016 issued by the Professor & Head of the Department of Physics, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had taught computer courses to M.Sc. (Chemistry) and M.Sc. (Physics) classes for the session 1996-97 to 2006-07. Also enclosed therewith is a certificate dated 29.01.2014, issued by the Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Sciences of the respondent-University, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had taught classes of P.G.D.C.A./M.C.A. as well as B.Sc. (Computer Science) for the session 1990-91 to 2001-02, while holding the post of a System Analyst as well as a System Manager. The petitioner is said to have been appointed as a System Analyst from 1990-91, and as a System Manager pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.05.2000. 8. As the respondent-University contends that the petitioner holds a non-teaching post, he was not obligated to take classes in different departments of the respondent-University. Having made him take classes, and having extracted from him the work of a teacher at least for the period during which he taught the students, the respondent-University is obligated to compensate him for his services of having taken classes, in different departments of the respondent-University, during the said period. 9. While we are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to be extended the revised 6th Pay Commission scales of pay and arrears as applicable to the teaching post of a “Reader”, the respondent-University is required to compensate him for his services of having taught computer courses to students in the departments of Physics, Chemistry and Computer Sciences of the respondent-University. Suffice it, therefore, to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent, furnishing details of the number of classes he had taught for various courses in different departments of the respondent-University. Suffice it, therefore, to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent, furnishing details of the number of classes he had taught for various courses in different departments of the respondent-University. On such a representation, containing all necessary details, being submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent shall examine the said representation, and determine the total amount payable to him, for his services, in accordance with law. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed and the determined sum being paid to the petitioner, shall be completed at the earliest and, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the petitioner’s representation. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.