Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1187 (TS)

Vincent Augustine v. State of Telangana

2025-10-09

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/party-in-person seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not granting promotional benefits such as pay fixation, increments and other service benefits as per his seniority as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant promotional benefits to him. 2. Heard Sri Vincent Augustine/party-in-person, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner submits that he was called for an interview for the post of Junior Technician in the month of December, 1977 and he was interviewed by the General Selection Committee Vice Chancellor Registrar and Technical expert from C.T.I. and he was offered a job. At that time, only one post of Junior Technician is available and the same has to be given to the Technician, who is already in service of the University. 4. The petitioner further submits that he was offered a lower post and assured his pay protection and accordingly, he joined the University in the lower post on 18.01.1978. In September, 1979, one more post of Junior Technician was given to the University and interview was conducted on 28.09.1979 and he was selected by the General Selection Committee. Based on his performance, his pay was protected and he was given initial basic pay of Rs.278/- by granting three increments in the pay scale of Rs.260-350 . 5. The petitioner further submits that on account of wrong pay fixation in revised pay rules, 1986, in the pay fixation only existing pay was considered and special pay given to him was not noticed and included. He was given the Senior Technician post on merit on 01.07.1991 and placed below with effect from 01.01.1992 with other junior Senior Technicians. After completion of eight years of service, his pay was not protected. As per the promotion policy for Senior Technician post, 75% would be seniority and 25% would be merit-cum-fitness. He was promoted as Senior Technician on merit-cum-fitness by the DPC Committee. His promotion date is changed to 01.01.1992, whereas his juniors were given from 01.07.1991 and placed below his juniors. 6. The petitioner further submits that he was placed two stages below in pay than his juniors. Upon making the representation, by order, dated 04.04.2001, his seniority is restored and given effect from 01.07.1991. His promotion date is changed to 01.01.1992, whereas his juniors were given from 01.07.1991 and placed below his juniors. 6. The petitioner further submits that he was placed two stages below in pay than his juniors. Upon making the representation, by order, dated 04.04.2001, his seniority is restored and given effect from 01.07.1991. The respondents have not paid his salary as per his seniority. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present writ petition. 7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner joined the University service on 18.01.1978 as a Helper (Turner) through direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.196-232. Later, he was appointed to the post of Junior Technician (Turner) on 28.09.1979 through direct recruitment in the pay scale of Rs.260-350. The pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.278/- by granting three increments, whereas the basic pay of other junior Technicians was only Rs.260/-. Subsequently, the petitioner’s pay along with other employees, was revised to Rs.284/- as per the Vice Chancellor’s order, dated 19.02.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner’s pay was further revised in accordance with IV Pay Commission Rules, 1986. Since the petitioner was duly recognized by his qualifications and experience, three advance increments were granted to the petitioner at the time of his entry into the post of Junior Technician and the same was protected throughout his service and three increments were included in his basic pay and carried forward in subsequent pay revisions. The three increments were granted at the time of appointment and the same cannot be granted repeatedly upon every promotion or pay revision. (b) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Technician with effect from 01.07.1991 and his pay scale was revised to Rs.1320-30-1560-40-2040 as per Order No.UH/P.II/B.2/2001/486, dated 03.07.2001. He is repeatedly raising the same issue throughout his service and the respondent University is addressing the petitioner time and again. The petitioner is under the wrong impression that he is entitled for three additional increments every time when he was promoted or pay is revised. Three increments were granted to the petitioner as a one-time benefit at the time of his appointment as a Junior Technician and the same were subsequently absorbed into his basic pay. The petitioner is under the wrong impression that he is entitled for three additional increments every time when he was promoted or pay is revised. Three increments were granted to the petitioner as a one-time benefit at the time of his appointment as a Junior Technician and the same were subsequently absorbed into his basic pay. (c) The grievance of the petitioner was examined by the Grievance Committee and the DPC and the same was reflected in the Memorandum dated 30.08.2001 and Memo dated 04.10.2022 and also through Office Memorandum dated 03.04.2023. Aggrieved by the said Memorandums and Memo, the petitioner has not filed any appeal and filed the present writ petition after 17 years of his voluntary retirement and the petitioner has not explained the reasons for the said prolonged delay. (d) The special pay equivalent to one increment i.e., Rs.30/- was granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1989 and the same is treated as a separate element and cannot be merged with the basic pay while fixing pay in the revised pay structure. The petitioner’s revised pay was correctly fixed in the revised pay structure based on the recommendations of VI CPC. One Mr.Zaheeruddin, who has joined the University service as a Junior Technician on 24.12.1977 more than one and half year before the joining of the petitioner in the same post, would be having a higher pay than the petitioner. The respondents have refixed the petitioner’s pay w.e.f. 01.07.1991 in the post of Senior Technician. The increments, which were granted earlier, were subsequently absorbed into his basic pay. The petitioner is not entitled to additional benefits each time as and when his pay is revised or refixed. Though the petitioner initially drawn a higher salary than Mr.Zaheeruddin due to the advance increments granted at the time of his appointment, when Mr.Zaheeruddin was placed in a higher pay scale under One-Time-Upward-Movement (OTUM) Scheme, after completing eight years of service in the Junior Technician Grade. Therefore, Mr.Zaheeruddin received a higher salary than the petitioner, regardless of seniority in the grade. The grievance raised by the petitioner has been examined at multiple levels and was found to be unfounded. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Technician on 01.07.1991 and took voluntary retirement in the year 2007 while holding the same post. Therefore, Mr.Zaheeruddin received a higher salary than the petitioner, regardless of seniority in the grade. The grievance raised by the petitioner has been examined at multiple levels and was found to be unfounded. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Technician on 01.07.1991 and took voluntary retirement in the year 2007 while holding the same post. Since then, the petitioner has been receiving the pension and other service benefits as per his seniority. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents stating as follows :- (a) After completion of eight years of regular service, his junior Technicians were given the next higher scale 1320-30-2040. After completion of eight years service on 28.09.1987, though he was appointed on basic pay of Rs.278/- i.e., pay scale of 260-350, his pay was arbitrarily demoted and also fixed like other Junior Technicians as 1320-30-2040, who were appointed on pay scale of 260- 350, against Rule FR 9(22). As per FR 9(22) (2), no person can be paid anything less than substantive pay at any time as a result of fixation of pay in a new scale. (b) As per Notification, dated 19.09.1990, promotion to the post of Senior Technician will be 75% Seniority-cum-Fitness and 25% Merit-cum-Fitness. Three juniors to the petitioner were promoted and their Seniority- cum-Fitness and their promotion date was given as 01.07.1991. Though the petitioner was promoted along with them on merit-cum-fitness in the same Committee, his promotion date was changed to 01.01.1992 and he was placed below his junior one Sri Syed Zaheeruddin in the post of Senior Technician. Further, in V and VI Pay Commissions, the petitioner’s two increments were placed below his junior. Aggrieved thereby, he made representations before the University Administration on 13.11.2020 and 11.01.2023. By order dated 30.11.1999, his seniority was restored as Senior Technician and placed above his junior and promotion effect date is 01.07.1991 on par with other Senior Technicians and promoted on Seniority-cum-Fitness. The petitioner was placed below his junior. His pay also should have been the same with the promoted Senior Technician as on 01.07.1991. By order dated 30.11.1999, his seniority was restored as Senior Technician and placed above his junior and promotion effect date is 01.07.1991 on par with other Senior Technicians and promoted on Seniority-cum-Fitness. The petitioner was placed below his junior. His pay also should have been the same with the promoted Senior Technician as on 01.07.1991. The order dated 04.04.2001 was not given to the petitioner if he would have given the order on 04.04.2001, he would have not gone to VRS. The Professor In-charge of the Central Workshop has given a Certificate regarding his services in the University. But, the respondents have not given promotional benefits to him. 10. The petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant promotional benefits to him and allow the writ petition. 11. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of either side, is of the considered view that since the petitioner was duly recognized by his qualifications and experience, three advance increments were granted to the petitioner at the time of his entry into the post of Junior Technician and the same was protected throughout his service and three increments were included in his basic pay and carried forward in subsequent pay revisions. The three increments granted at the time of appointment cannot be granted repeatedly upon every promotion or pay revision. Since the rectification of his promotion date and pay was duly carried out, there was no further grievance for the petitioner to claim that his career was ruined or that his rights were denied. The petitioner repeatedly raised the same matter throughout his service, and the respondent University addressed the same time and again. 12. Furthermore, the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Senior Technician was given effect from 01.07.1991, and his pay was revised accordingly, as per Order No. UH/P.II/B.2/2001/486, dated 03.07.2001. The petitioner's grievance was examined by the appropriate authorities, including the Grievance Committee and the DPC, which were reflected in the memorandum dated 30.08.2001 and memo dated 04.10.2002 with the necessary rectifications. Furthermore, the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Senior Technician was given effect from 01.07.1991, and his pay was revised accordingly, as per Order No. UH/P.II/B.2/2001/486, dated 03.07.2001. The petitioner's grievance was examined by the appropriate authorities, including the Grievance Committee and the DPC, which were reflected in the memorandum dated 30.08.2001 and memo dated 04.10.2002 with the necessary rectifications. Further, the petitioner, during his entire career, did not file any appeal under Section 32 of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1947, against any Office Memorandum or orders issued by the Respondent University and has filed the present Writ Petition after 17 years of his voluntary retirement and the petitioner has not explained any reasons for the said prolonged delay. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner's revised pay was correctly fixed in the revised pay structure, based on the recommendations of the VI CPC. Further, one Mr. Zaheeruddin, who joined in the University as a Junior Technician on 24.12.1977 i.e., more than one and a half years before joining the petitioner, in the same post would be having higher pay than the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Technician on 01.07.1991 and took voluntary retirement in the year 2007. Since then, the petitioner has been receiving pension and other service benefits as per his seniority. As a matter of fact, the increments, which were granted to the petitioner earlier, were subsequently absorbed into his basic pay. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to additional benefits each time as and when his pay is revised or refixed. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.