Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 72 (MAN)

Harimohan Sharma v. State of Manipur

2022-05-10

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 13.9.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (RD&PR), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to streamline/re-fix the pay of the Principal/SIRD, Manipur in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by UGC i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP 9000/- as per the recommendation of NIRD/MorD, Government of India or in parity with the Principal (Under Graduate College) i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP 10,000 + Rs.2000/- special Allowances as prescribed by the State Government. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Manipur on 21.6.1984 and he was later on appointed by promotion to the post of Principal (MPRTI) [now State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD)] of the RD & PR on regular basis. Since the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of SIRD have not been framed, the respondents has adopted the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of NIRD, Government of India. However, by ignoring and overlooking the fact that there must be an uniformity in the pay scale of the faculty all over India and the pay scale should be equal to UGC scale and equal to the UGC post of Associate Professor as per the proceedings of National Colloquium of ETCs 2nd and 3rd June, 2016 of NIRDPR, MoRD, Government of India and also in total disregards to the Rules of the SIRD, by the impugned order dated 13.09.2018, the petitioner who is holding the post of Principal (MPRTI) was ordered for retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2018. According to the petitioner, the pay of the Principal/SIRD is to be streamlined in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by UGC or in parity with Principal (UG College) as prescribed by the State Government, the age of superannuation in respect of the petitioner on the capacity as Principal/SIRD (MPRTI) ought to be fixed as 65 years. 3. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duty or till the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. 3. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duty or till the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. He was regularized as Instructor (Agri) in the scale of pay of Rs.720-30-1020-EB04501470/- per month. It is stated that the Directorate has forwarded an application submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary (RD & PR) for re-fixation of the pay scale of Principal in the pay scale of Associate Professor prescribed by UGC i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP Rs.9000/- as per the recommendation of NIRD/MoRD, Government of India or a Principal (UG College) of the State Government Rs. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP Rs.10000+Rs.2000 Special Allowance prescribed by the State Government on 27.1.2017. The Deputy Secretary (RD & PR) requested the Director (RD&PR) to submit a comment along with justification for re-fixation of pay scale of Principal (MPRTI) on 4.5.2017. On 18.11.2017, the Directorate has addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary (RD & PR) protecting the pay of the Principal/SIRD. 4. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the promotion avenue of Principal/SIRD is to be from (i) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (ii) Instructor (Agri) and (iii) Instructor (Sociology) with five years regular service in their respective grade and their pay is Rs.5200-20200+GP2800 in the recruitment rule. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal (MPRTI) vide order dated 23.8.1994 in the RD & PR Department on regular basis in the scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4300/- on 21.4.2015. In the recruitment rule, it is mentioned that the post of Principal has to be promoted from (i) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (ii) Instructor (Agri) and (iii) Instructor (Sociology) with five years regular service in their respective grade. The then Principal/SIRD K.S.Lungrei retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. 5. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the RD & PR Department, the post of BDO (Jr), Assistant Director (Panchayat), Project Officer (MC) and Principal (SIRD) are the feeder post of MCS (JR) and they are same scale and to be promoted to the next higher post to MCS-II. The age of retirement of Polytechnic teachers is 62 years and the Government College teachers is also 62 years. The age of retirement of Polytechnic teachers is 62 years and the Government College teachers is also 62 years. By the Office Memorandum dated 28.2.2013, the retirement of the Government College teachers extended from 62 years to 65 years. As of now the age of retirement of Principal and faculty members of SIRD is 60 years. Since the petitioner cannot be considered as per rules and standing orders, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The fifth respondent/SIRD filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the post of Principal, Manipur Panchayat Raj Training Institute (MPRTI) now amended as SIRD in the RD & PR Department on regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+GP4300/- on 21.4.2015. The salary of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is drawn from the Directorate of RD & PR, Manipur (Panchayat Wing) and not from the Directorate of SIRD. It is stated that the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is a cadre post of Junior Manipur Civil Service. The higher post for promotion from the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is the post of MCS-II, which is organised service regulated under the Department of P&AR under the provisions of MCS Rules, 1965. 7. It is stated that as per the records maintained by the Directorate of RD & PR, K.S.Lungrei, former Principal, MPRTI/SIRD was also appointed on promotion to the post of MCS-II and retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. The educational qualification of the petitioner is B.Sc. (Agri) Hons. However, in the recruitment rules, for the post of Principal of Government Colleges (Professor's Grade), it is mentioned that the essential qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Principal in Government Colleges are (i) Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of recognized University; (ii) Ph.D. Degree or equivalent qualification; (iii) total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in University/College and other institution of higher education. 8. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.9.2018, Mr. 8. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.9.2018, Mr. Hemchandra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in total disregards to the Rules of SIRD, Manipur, the under Secretary of RD & PR, Government of Manipur, ordered retirement of the petitioner, who is holding the post of Principal, MPRTI of the Directorate of RD & PR, from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2018 and further ordered that the service of the petitioner stands terminated with effect from 31.12.2018, which is highly improper, arbitrary and purely non application of mind and also bad in law. 9. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of the SIRD has not been framed so far and the respondent State adopted the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of NIRD, Government of India as enshrined under Chapter-VI of the Rules of the SIRD. As such, the age of superannuation in respect of the petitioner, on the capacity as Principal/SIRD/MPRTI ought to be 65 years of age as prescribed by the UGC or the State Government. 10. Drawing the attention of the Court to various Office Memorandums and notifications of the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur and Department of P&AR and also AICTE, the learned counsel submitted that the age of retirement in case of a State Government employee is raised from 59 to 60 years and in the case of teachers of State Government and teachers of State Government Polytechnic, the retirement age was raised from 60 to 62 years on superannuation and also in the case of retirement of teachers of the State Government Colleges, the age for retirement was raised from 62 to 65 years on superannuation. He would submit that the petitioner who is now working as Principal, MPRTI is not only doing the administrative work but also involve class room teaching activities and therefore he is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 65 years and hence, the impugned order is highly illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, Mr. 11. Per contra, Mr. Lenin Hijam, the learned Advocate General submitted that while the petitioner was in service, he has submitted an application for re-fixation of pay scale of Principal in the pay scale of Associate Professor prescribed by the UGC as per the recommendation of NIRD/MoRD, Government of India or as a Principal (Under Graduate College of State Government) as prescribed by the State Government and the Director addressed a letter dated 18.11.2017 in this regard to the Principal Secretary, P&AR protecting the pay of the Principal, SIRD. 12. The learned Advocate General further submitted that in the Department, the promotion avenue of Principal, SIRD is to be promoted from (1) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (2) Instructor (Agri); (3) Instructor (Sociology) with five years regular service in their respective grade and their pay is Rs.5200-20200+GO 2800 in the recruitment rules. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal, MPRTI in RD & PR Department on regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4300/. He would submit that the then Principal, SIRD retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of 60 years on superannuation and the petitioner is the successor. Since as of now the age of retirement of Principal and faculty members of SIRD, Manipur is 60 years, the claim of the petitioner has no basis and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. 13. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the post of Principal, MPRTI, now amended as SIRD in the RD & PR Department on regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4300/-. He would submit that the salary of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is drawn from the Directorate of RD & PR and not from the Directorate of SIRD and that the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is a cadre post of Junior Manipur Civil Service. The higher post for promotion from the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is the post of MCS-IT which is an organised service regulated under the Department of P&AR under the provisions of MCS Rules, 1965. He would also submit that the former Principal was also appointed on promotion to the post of MCS-II and retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 14. He would also submit that the former Principal was also appointed on promotion to the post of MCS-II and retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 14. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not only doing administrative work, but was also involved in class room teaching activities while he was working as Principal, MPRTI and, therefore, he is entitled to superannuation at the age of 65 years. In support, the petitioner has mainly relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 28.2.2013, wherein the age of retirement of teachers of the State Government Colleges in Manipur was raised from 62 years to 65 years on superannuation. 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the said Office Memorandum dated 28.2.2013, it has been stated that after careful consideration of all relevant UGC guidelines regarding the service conditions of Teachers of Government Colleges and also with the approval of the State Cabinet in its sitting held on 28.02.2013, it has been decided by the State Government that the age of retirement of the teachers who are involved in class-room teaching in respect of all the State Government Colleges in Manipur on superannuation shall be 65 years with immediate effect. He would submit that in the case of the petitioner, he is not only doing administrative work but also involved class room teaching activities. 17. The petitioner was initially appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of RD & PR, Manipur for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duty or till the post is filled up on regular basis, whichever is earlier and thereafter he was regularized as Instructor (Agri) in the scale of pay of Rs.720-30-1020-EB-45-1470/-. 18. It appears that by the order dated 24.12.2016, 68 contract employees (Faculty & Staff) of SIRD, RGPSA/BRGF and e-Panchayat have been regularised and absorbed in the Department of RD & PR, Manipur against the post created. In the said order, it has been stated that all posts created, if any, at the time of initial engagement of these 68 contract employees would stand abolished. In the said order, it has been stated that all posts created, if any, at the time of initial engagement of these 68 contract employees would stand abolished. It has also been mentioned that all 68 contract employees shall be utilised at SIRD, Porompat till further orders. According to the fifth respondent, there is no single contract and regular employee in the SIRD, Manipur. 19. The petitioner who was working as Instructor (Agri) was appointed on promotion to the post of Principal, MPRTI now amended as SIRD in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department on regular basis in the time scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800+GP Rs.4300/- vide order dated 21.4.2015. 20. At this juncture, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Motor General Traders and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1984) 1 SCC 222 , the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that equals have to be treated equally and unequals ought not to be treated equally. 21. In Motor General Traders, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: '10. The petitioners principally rely upon Article 14 of the Constitution in support of their case. The equality clause contained in that Article requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. Equals have to be treated equally and unequals ought not to be treated equally. While that Article forbids class legislation, it does not forbid classification for purposes of implementing the right of equality guaranteed by it. ....' 22. It is apposite to mention that the petitioner is a simple B.Sc. (Agri) Honours and in the relevant Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal of Government Colleges i.e. Professor's Grade, the essential qualification for direct recruitment for the post of Principal are (a) Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of recognised University; (b) Ph. D. Degree or equivalent qualification and (c) total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in University/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. As stated supra, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal from the feeder category of Instructor (Agri) and therefore, he cannot be equated as Principal of Government Colleges. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Principal serving in SIRD, Manipur is equivalent to the Principal of Government Colleges. As stated supra, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal from the feeder category of Instructor (Agri) and therefore, he cannot be equated as Principal of Government Colleges. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Principal serving in SIRD, Manipur is equivalent to the Principal of Government Colleges. Moreover, the salary of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is drawn from the Directorate of RD & PR, Manipur (Panchayat Wing) and not from the Directorate of SIRD. 23. It also appears from the pleadings that the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is a cadre post of Junior Manipur Civil Service and the higher post for promotion from the post of Principal, MPRTI/SIRD is the post of MCS-II which is an organised service regulated under the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur under the provisions of Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1965. It is pertinent to point out that the former Principal of MPRTI/SIRD K.S.Lungrei was also appointed on promotion to the post of MCS-II and retired on 30.4.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim his superannuation at the age of 65 years. 24. Though the petitioner contended that the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of the SIRD, Manipur has not been framed so far and the respondent State is adopting the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of the NIRD, Government of India under Chapter- VI of the Rules of the SIRD and as such the age of superannuation in respect of the petitioner on the capacity as Principal, MPRTI/SIRD ought to be 65 years of age as prescribed by UGC or State Government, in view of the finding arrived at by this Court that the Principal from the feeder category of Instructor (Agri) cannot be equated as Principal of Government Colleges, the petitioner is estopped from comparing the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of the NIRD, Government of India. 25. On a perusal of the notification dated 23.8.1994, it is clear that the Directorate of P&AR (Personnel Division) has regulated the method of recruitment to the post of Principal, MPRTI in the Panchayat Department as shown in the MPSC Form-8. 25. On a perusal of the notification dated 23.8.1994, it is clear that the Directorate of P&AR (Personnel Division) has regulated the method of recruitment to the post of Principal, MPRTI in the Panchayat Department as shown in the MPSC Form-8. Since the recruitment rule prescribes that the post of Principal has to be promoted from (i) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (ii) Instructor (Agri) and (iii) Instructor (Sociology) with 5 years regular service in their grade, the petitioner cannot compare the other categories to contend that the retirement age has been raised from 60 to 62 years and 62 to 65 years respectively. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.9.2018 ordering the retirement of the petitioner from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2018. Further, as of now the age of retirement of Principal and faculty members of SIRD, Manipur is 60 years. 26. Since the prayer of the petitioner to raise the age of superannuation of the Principal from 60 to 65 years has no basis and the same cannot be granted, the question of consideration of the next prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to streamline/re-fix the pay of Principal, SIRD, Manipur in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by the UGC does not arise. That apart, in support of the said claim, nothing has been produced by the petitioner. The only document relied upon by the petitioner is the representation dated 23.1.2017 wherein the petitioner sought re-fixation of pay scale of the Principal, SIRD/SIPARD/MPRTI in the scale of Associate Professor prescribed by UGC. Since the petitioner was issued with the order impugned ordering to retire from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2018 A.N., the consideration of the aforesaid prayer for re-fixation of the pay of the Principal does not arise. There is no merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 27. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.