DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Vs. SANTHAKUMARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by State, challenge is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge holding that respondent (hereinafter referred to as employee) is entitled to three advance increments with attendant seniority and service benefits retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1986.

(2.) Factual position is undisputed and is as follows: Employee, after having acquired M.A. degree, joined St. Treasa's College, Ernakulam on 15.6.1965 as Lecturer in Hindi. Subsequently, in 1980, she got her Ph.D. in Hindi from Kerala University. Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi University (hereinafter referred to as University) approved her as supervising teacher/approved guide for guiding the students/scholars leading to the award of Ph.D. degree from the University. Fifth Pay Commission of the State made certain recommendations which were accepted on 1.11.1989 by State Government giving effect to it from 1.7.1988. One of the recommendations viz. Clause.44 granted one advance increment to the teaching staff possessing Ph.D. and working in the Department of Collegiate Education. Subsequently, the University Grants Commission accepted recommendations of Mehrotra Committee for reviewing the status of higher education in the country and Government of India implemented the scheme known as 'U.G.C. Scheme, 1986' with effect from 1.1.1986. It also offered financial assistance to the State Governments. Kerala State Government, by order dated 27.3.1990, passed an order to the effect that U.G.C. Scheme, as approved by Government of India, will be implemented in the State. Dispute relates to Clause.4.04 of the Scheme of the revision of pay scales of teachers in Universities and affiliated colleges in Kerala and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education. Said clause reads as follows:

(3.) According to employee, since she joined as Lecturer in 1965 and acquired Ph.D. in 1980 well before the date of implementation of the Scheme, viz. 1.1.1986, she would be entitled for three advance increments. Claim was negatived by appellants. Employee moved this Court for relief.