Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 197 (HP)

Savita Thakur Joshi v. H. P. University, Shimla

2024-03-22

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This is a case where the petitioner has remained posted on the same post throughout her service career of about 33 years. Petitioner was appointed as Research Investigator in Population Research Centre (for short, “PRC”) of Himachal Pradesh University (for short, “HPU”). Petitioner is scheduled to retire on 31.03.2024 and still she is working on the same post of Research Investigator. 2. The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, has established a network of PRCs for the purpose of obtaining critical research basis inputs related to Health & Family Welfare Programmes and Policies at the National and State Levels. The PRC in HPU is one of such Centres. As per the stand taken by respondents No. 4 and 5, the PRCs are aided by Central Government, whereas, for administrative purposes, they are amenable to the rules of the institution where they are established. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have called the PRCs as Plan Schemes. Since the funding of PRCs is done by the Central Government, the staffing pattern is also approved by it. 3. The staffing pattern of PRC in HPU is as under: Sr.No. Name of post No. of positions 1. Honorary Director 01 2. Reader/Deputy Director 01 3. Lecturer/Assistant Director 01 4. Research Investigators 02 5. Field Investigators 02 6. Jr. Assistant/UDC 01 7. Clerk-Typist/LDC 01 8. Peon 01 9. Driver (L/V) 01 10. Research Fellows 02 4. It is not in dispute that the posts of Deputy Director or Assistant Director in PRC of HPU are required to be filled up by direct recruitment. There are no promotional avenues for being promoted to these posts from the post of Research Investigator. 5. The post of Deputy Director had been lying vacant since 2005 and despite initiation of selection process by the HPU, from time to time, the same could not be filled for one or the other reason. The petitioner also being eligible for the post of Deputy Director had been applying as and when the selection process was initiated, but since the selection process was not completed, no selection could be made. The petitioner also being eligible for the post of Deputy Director had been applying as and when the selection process was initiated, but since the selection process was not completed, no selection could be made. In such background, the petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 2011 with the following reliefs: (i) That the impugned letter dated 24.05.2011 at Annexure P-24, whereby the respondent No.5 has conveyed to the respondent- University to re-advertise the post of Deputy Director, Population Research Centre, H.P. University and the note in the letter dated 26.04.2011 at Annexure P-23, may very kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii) That the respondents may also be directed to complete the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Deputy Director in Population Research Centre, H.P. University, Shimla on regular basis, in pursuance of the advertisement issued at Annexure P-14 dated 14.11.2009 and make appointment to the post of accordingly within stipulated period. iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay salary of the post of Deputy Director to the petitioner w.e.f. the year 1995 for the work extracted from her against the post of Deputy Director since the year 1995 till date, with all consequential benefits.” 6. There is also no dispute on the fact that even the post of Assistant Director in PRC of HPU is lying vacant since 2011. In absence of incumbents on both the posts i.e. Deputy Director or Assistant Director, the petitioner being next in hierarchy has been burdened with the job requirement of both the posts since 2005 and 2011, respectively. 7. As over 12 years have elapsed since the filing of the instant petition, the reliefs as prayed by the petitioner have lost relevance. Even if the directions are issued to the respondents to fill up the posts of Deputy Director or Assistant Director, it will take considerable time in completion of selection process and as noticed above, the petitioner will not be able to derive any benefit as she is going to superannuate on 31.3.2024. 8. Faced with the above situation, petitioner filed CMP-T No. 41 of 2024 in January, 2024 with a prayer to hear the petition at the earliest. Alongwith the application, she also placed on record certain information received by the petitioner from HPU under the Right to Information Act. 8. Faced with the above situation, petitioner filed CMP-T No. 41 of 2024 in January, 2024 with a prayer to hear the petition at the earliest. Alongwith the application, she also placed on record certain information received by the petitioner from HPU under the Right to Information Act. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made reference to the contents of the information supplied to the petitioner by the HPU under Right to Information Act, which reveal that the Executive Council of HPU had appointed a Committee to consider the hardship caused to the petitioner in the prevailing circumstances and to make recommendations. The said Committee on 11.7.2023 had made the following recommendations: “1. To designate her as officiating Assistant Director on purely temporary basis without any financial benefit. 2. To revise her grade pay from 15000-34100-6000 to 15000-34100-7000 since 01.01.2016, both in the analogy of Dr. Minakshi Sharma, Research Investigator whereby she has been promoted to Research Officer and incharge of Agro Economic Research Center (AERC), vide office order no. PF/AERC (Estt) 123-133 dated 31st December, 2016 and office order No. 12-66/76-HPU (Estt.) respectively, with subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOH&FW), Govt. of India. Since the incumbent/applicant is already drawing UGC scale of Rs.15000-34100-6000(AGP) since 01.01.2006 and is getting a higher amount than the initial pay scale of Assistant Professor, so in her case revision in scale will not lead to higher financial burden to the MOH&FW. As PRC is funded by MOH&FW, there will be no financial burden on host institution i.e. Himachal Pradesh University in any way. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.” 9. On 6.3.2024, this Court had passed the following order: “Heard for some time. During the course of the hearing, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has placed on record minutes of proceedings of the meetings held by a Committee constituted by University on the representation of the petitioner. According to these minutes, in the proceedings dated 27th August, 2022, the Committee had recommended grant of officiating status/designation as Associate Professor Incharge to the petitioner without financial benefits, after finding merit in the representation of the petitioner. However, in a later proceeding dated 11th July, 2023, the Committee recommended to designate the petitioner as Officiating Assistant Director on purely temporary basis without any financial benefit. However, in a later proceeding dated 11th July, 2023, the Committee recommended to designate the petitioner as Officiating Assistant Director on purely temporary basis without any financial benefit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was High Court of H.P. appointed as Research Investigator on 06.11.1990 in Population Research Centre of the Himachal Pradesh University. The petitioner is scheduled to retire on 31st March, 2024 and still she is holding the same post of Research Investigator. Despite having long career and without there being any complaint as to her performance, petitioner has not been able to secure any advancement in her career as far as designation is concerned. Without adverting to the merits of the claim of the petitioner at this stage and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case more particularly findings recorded by the Committee in its meetings as noticed above, this Court feels that in the interest of justice, the University should reconsider the case of the petitioner especially in terms of the recommendation of the committee made vide proceedings held on 27th August, 2022 or in alternative, to take a positive decision on the recommendation of the meeting of the Committee held on 11th July, 2023. The reconsideration be positively done within one week and status be reported to this Court on 14.03.2024. 10. In response, a compliance report dated 16.3.2024 was submitted on behalf of the HPU. Though termed as compliance report, the document submitted by the HPU is in the shape of status report. According to this report, it has been submitted that the recommendations of the Committee appointed by Executive Council have to be placed before the Executive Council for consideration and approval. It could not be earlier placed as the authorities were considering the aspect of deemed abolition of post of Deputy Registrar at PRC. Further, it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner would now be put up before the Executive Council in its next meeting. 11. The HPU thus has not disputed the right of the petitioner to be conferred with the benefit of recommendation by the Committee constituted by the Executive Council. Strangely however, the recommendation was not placed before the Executive Council till date, despite the fact that the recommendation was made in the month of July, 2023. 11. The HPU thus has not disputed the right of the petitioner to be conferred with the benefit of recommendation by the Committee constituted by the Executive Council. Strangely however, the recommendation was not placed before the Executive Council till date, despite the fact that the recommendation was made in the month of July, 2023. It is not the case of HPU that since July, 2023, no meeting of Executive Council has been convened. In this scenario, petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate right of being considered. Such right will die its natural death with the retirement of petitioner as there is no possibility of convention of meeting of Executive Council before 31.03.2024. 12. In the peculiar circumstances, as detailed above, this Court is of the view that interest of justice will be served by directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to grant the benefits as recommended by the Committee constituted by the Executive Council of the HPU in its meeting held on 11.7.2023 before the date of retirement of petitioner, more particularly, when the HPU has not made any attempt to show that the petitioner is not entitled for such benefits. 13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.