Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 559 (KER)

Pramod P. v. Union Of India

2022-07-07

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Since the issues canvassed, projected and impelled in these matters are common, I have heard them together and propose to dispose them of through this judgment. 2. The constitutive issue involved is whether there is any conflict between the Government of India Order (hereinafter referred to as “GOI Pay Scale Order”), accepting the recommendations of the Pay Review Committee (PRC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) with respect to the pay scales of teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges, on the one hand; and between the “UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2018”), on the other. 3. This question has arisen because it is admitted that the Government of Kerala adopted both these orders and Regulations respectively, through valid proceedings; but then, while adopting the 'UGC Regulations 2018’, through order dated 29.09.2019, it introduced a caveat that, in the event of any conflict between the provisions of the said Regulations and the order of the Government of Kerala adopting the 'GOI Pay Scale Order', the latter would prevail. 4. This particular condition incorporated by the Government in the aforementioned order, gave rise to a question whether the advance increments mentioned in 'UGC Regulations 2018' would become ungrantable to the petitioners, because the Government of Kerala Order adopting the 'GOI Pay Scale Order' contained a stipulation -couched in Clause 6.1.7 thereof -that no incentives in the form of advance increments may be available to any person for obtaining the degree of M.Phil/Ph.D. 5. The petitioners contend that Government of Kerala was wrong in making the afore inhibition because there can be no conflict between the ‘GOI Pay Scale Order’ and the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’; especially since the latter was issued at a subsequent point of time and which was in continuation of the earlier UGC Regulations of the year 2010 (‘UGC Regulations 2010’). 6. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel – instructed by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, Sri.Arun B.Varghese – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the UGC; Smt.Parvathy K. – learned Government Pleader and Sri.P.Sreekumar who assisted this Court commendably as Amicus Curiae. 7. 6. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel – instructed by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, Sri.Arun B.Varghese – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing Counsel for the UGC; Smt.Parvathy K. – learned Government Pleader and Sri.P.Sreekumar who assisted this Court commendably as Amicus Curiae. 7. Noticing the rather complex issues projected and the ramifications it may hold in future, I though it necessary to requisition the assistance of an Amicus Curiae and requested Sri.P.Sreekumar to do so. His inputs and assistance in this matter certainly helped this Court in arriving at the judgment that I am presently delivering. 8. For the purpose of this judgment, propose to treat WP(C)No.8213/2020 as the lead case and all reference to the documents and parties will be as reflected therein, unless otherwise specified. 9. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel and Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned counsel, made vehement submissions to the effect that Government of Kerala has mixed up two different Regulations and has virtually said that the provisions of one will override the other. They argued that since the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' and the ‘UGC Regulations’ – be that the 2010 or the 2018 – operate on different spheres, there can be no conflict between them; and consequently, one cannot override the other. They predicated that the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' was intended to regulate the Pay and Allowances of teachers under the UGC Scheme; while ‘UGC Regulations 2010/2018’ are intended to promote excellence in teaching and to incentivise it appositely. They argued that, therefore, the incentives stipulated in the ‘UGC Regulations 2010/2018’ would become applicable to the teachers on the specific criteria therein being satisfied; notwithstanding what is stated in the 'GOI Pay Revision Order'. They thus prayed that these Writ Petitions be allowed. 10. Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that, on the edifice of the research done by him, the afore submissions of the petitioners certainly are worthy. He explained, referring to the specific documents in WP(C)No.8213/2020, that there are two different and distinct Order and Regulations involved in these cases, namely the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' and the ‘UGC Regulations 2010/UGC Regulations 2018’. He pointed out that the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' is Ext.P4 dated 02.11.2017, which was issued accepting the recommendations of the Pay Review Committee under the University Grants Commission. He pointed out that the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' is Ext.P4 dated 02.11.2017, which was issued accepting the recommendations of the Pay Review Committee under the University Grants Commission. He then showed me that ‘UGC Regulations 2010’ and the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ have been placed on record as Exts.P2 and P5 respectively, and that they have been brought into force by the UGC under Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, for the purpose of incentivising and promoting excellence in teaching and other academic activities. 11. Sri.P.Sreekumar then submitted that Ext.P4 was adopted by the Government of Kerala through Ext.P6; but that since there was a small mistake therein, Ext.P7 was issued to correct it and hence that Ext.P4 holds adoption by the Government under Exts.P6 and P7. He then added that, as far as Ext.P5 ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ is concerned, it has been adopted by the Government through Ext.P8 and argued that, therefore, paragraph 5 of the said order – which seems to stipulate that if there is any inconsistency between the said Regulations and the 'GOI Pay Revision Order', the latter would prevail – is absolutely impermissible and totally superfluous because, as said above, the ‘GOI Pay Revision Order’ and the ‘UGC Regulations’ operate on different fields and distinctly, under separate criteria. He closed his submissions saying that, therefore, paragraph 5 of Ext.P8 order is not merely impermissible but was unnecessary; and that in any event, incapable of being implemented. 12. In response, however, the learned Government Pleader – Smt.Parvathy K., submitted that law has been well settled that the Government of Kerala can adopt any UGC Regulation or instruction, either in full or in part. She submitted that this is exactly what has been done through Ext.P8 order, through which, even though the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ has been adopted, it has been made clear that if there is any provision in Ext.P6/P7 inconsistent with it, then the latter will prevail. She vehemently asserted that this was within the freedom of the Government to do and therefore, that the impugned paragraph in Ext.P8 cannot be interdicted; thus praying that it be not done. 13. The stand of the rival parties being so placed on record, I am certainly obliged to consider whether there is any conflict between the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' and the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’. 14. 13. The stand of the rival parties being so placed on record, I am certainly obliged to consider whether there is any conflict between the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' and the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’. 14. I, therefore, asked Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy –learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, about this and he submitted that there can be no conflict between the afore two and that they are intended to operate differently, but complementary to each other. He added that every benefit entitled to teachers under the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' and ‘UGC Regulations 2018’, or for that matter ‘UGC Regulations 2010’, would be entitled to them, without any conflict and in an adjunct manner. He, however, added that the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ is only prospective, though conceding that ‘UGC Regulations 2010’ is verbatim of the same and would operate to teachers who were appointed prior to 18.07.2018. 15. The afore submissions of Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy and the inputs given by Sri.P.Sreekumar render the field rather limpid now. 16. The Government of Kerala, no doubt, adopted Ext.P4 'GOI Pay Revision Order' through Exts.P6 and P7 and then proceeded to adopt Ext.P5 -‘UGC Regulations 2018’ through Ext.P8 order. Contrary to the afore submissions of Smt.Parvathy K. -learned Government Pleader, the Government did not use their freedom to adopt the order and the Regulations in part, but in its entirety, without any exception being carved out. Obviously, therefore, they could not have restrained or constrained the operation of one among them by the conditions/criteria available in the other; and to that extent, certainly, what has been stated in the impugned paragraph of Ext.P8 appears to be either made thoughtlessly or erroneously. 17. To paraphrase, when the Government of Kerala adopted the 'GOI Pay Revision Order' through Exts.P6 and P7, stipulations therein became applicable to all teachers and academic staff; and when they went on to adopt ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ thereafter, the incentives and other benefits under it also became additionally available to them; and I fail to gather how they could say that the provisions of the former would govern that of the latter in the case of conflict among them, when there can be no such. This is more so because, the UGC takes the affirmative stand before this Court that the benefits in the Order and the Regulations are independent of each other, but complementary and additional. 18. This is more so because, the UGC takes the affirmative stand before this Court that the benefits in the Order and the Regulations are independent of each other, but complementary and additional. 18. In that perspective, obviously, the impugned paragraph in Ext.P8 order of the Government can only be seen to be in error – if they still maintain that it was done deliberately – and without properly understanding the ambit of Exts.P4 and P5. 19. The sum total is that teachers who entered service subsequent to the ‘UGC Regulations 2010’ or the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ with Ph.D/M.Phil Degree would certainly be entitled to the advanced increments mentioned therein, de hors any stipulation in Ext.P4 'GOI Pay Revision Order', and in addition to the benefits therein. As far as teachers who have entered service on the strength of M.Phil and then obtained a Ph.D, they stand governed by Clause 19.1 IV(a) of the ‘UGC Regulations 2018’ and Clause 9.4(1) of the ‘UGC Regulations 2010’, as the case may be, depending upon the year in which they were recruited, since the UGC says that operation of both of them is only prospective in nature. In summation, I order these Writ Petitions declaring that the benefits eligible to the teachers and other academic staff covered by ‘UGC Regulations 2010/UGC Regulations 2018’ will be in addition to the benefits entitled to them under Ext.P4 'GOI Pay Revision Order' accepting the Pay Revision recommendations of the UGC; and therefore, that they will be entitled to obtain all such without any impediment. As a corollary to the above declarations, I further clarify that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Government Order, bearing No.GO(P)No.28/2019/H.Edn dated 29.09.2019, would stand invalid and would not affect any accrued right of the teachers and academic staff based on the “UGC Regulations, 2018”/”UGC Regulations, 2010”. Needless to say, all consequences of this declaration shall follow forthwith. Before I close, I must gratefully record the incisive and exhaustive assistance offered to this Court by Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Amicus Curiae. He has also made available research documents and his notes for such purpose, without which, certainly, the ease at which the issues were decided by this Court would not have been possible.