R A MALAGI Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, who is working as Professor and Head of the Department of English in the School of Languages, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad has brought in challenge the action of the respondent-University and its Executive Council which are joined as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, by which his starting basic salary in the pay scale of Professor in English, viz. Rs. 1500-50-1800- 100-2000-125/2-2500 was fixed at Rs. 1560.00. In order to highlight this grievance, a few introductory facts deserve to be noted at the outset.

(2.) . Respondent No. 1-University is a body corporate incorporated under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat University Act, 1949. It is running a school of Languages at Ahmedabad. In the said School, University appoints professors, readers and lecturers in various subjects. So far as the petitioner is concerned he is B.A. First class with two gold medals and M.A. from the Karnataka University. He has also got Doctorate degree from the Karnataka University in English literature. The petitioner joined the Government Polytechnic, Poona in October 1960 and thereafter worked as lecturer and then as Assistant Professor in English at M.E.S. College, Poona from July 196 1/09/1971. In September 1971, he joineoined the Karnataka University as Reader with basic salary of Rs. 950.00 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200. It is not in dispute that before revision of pay scale of University teachers, readers pay scale was from 700-1250 and professors pay scale was starting from 1100. Pursuant to revision of time scales on the recommendations of Sen Commission Junior readers time scale became Rs. 1200-1900, senior readers time scale became Rs. 1600-2000 and Junior Professors time scale became revised to Rs. 1500-2500. As stated above, the petitioner had worked in Karnataka University as a reader on basic salary of Rs. 950.00 in the pay scale of Rs. 700- 1250. The first respondent had advertised for filling up vacant posts of professors and lecturers in various specialities. One post of professor of English in the University School of Languages, amongst others, was also advertised. That appears to have been done in 1977. The petitioner made application on 18-2-1977 to the first respondent pursuant to the said advertisement. He was called for interview and was interviewed by selection committee of the University. The petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the University by registered post letter dated 24-8-1977 that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 20-8-1977 had decided to appoint him to the post of Professor of English in the University School of Languages, with effect from 1-9-1977, in the time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 with usual D.A. and other benefits. It becomes obvious that the petitioner was offered the said appointment as Professor in the revised pay scale of junior professor as per Sen Commission recommendations. A copy of the said letter is at Annexure A to the petition. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was issued appointment memo on 29-8-1977 which is at Annexure B to the petition and therein, it was stated that the petitioner is appointed in the grade of Rs. 1500-2500 plus D.A. and other allowances as permissible according to the University rules and his starting basic salary will be Rs. 1500.00. He was, therefore, requested to send his acceptance of the appointment and inform the University when he was likely to join. Thereafter, the petitioner sent his letter of acceptance on 2-9-1977 in which he accepted the appointment but specifically stated that his basic salary at Karnataka University should be protected by the Gujarat University. These averments about the petitioners acceptance of appointment vide his letter dated 2-9-1977 are found in para 2 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder. This acceptance letter of.. the petitioner mentioning this request for protecting his pay as drawn by him at Karnataka University as reader was replied to by the Registrar of the respondent University vide letter dated 8-9-1977 which is at Annexure C to the petition. The Registrar felt happy that the petitioner was able to join as Professor. So far as the petitioners request in his letter dated 2-9-1977 about protection of his salary is concerned, it was mentioned in para 2 of the said letter at Annexure C that the question of refixation of his salary fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Council and,therefore, this matter will be placed in its next meeting and it was stated that it will be helpful if in the meanwhile, the petitioner could let his office have his last pay certificate detailing his basic salary and allowances. In response to the said letter at Annexure C, received from the Registrar of the respondent University, the petitioner vide his letter dated 27-9-1977 at Annexure D, under the captioned subject - Salary certificate last pay drawn, protection of salary - wrote to the Registrar informing him that consequent upon revision of pay scale, the Karnataka University had fixed his salary in the readers scale of Rs. 1200-1900 at Rs. 1780. The petitioner also stated that he felt sure that the Registrar will put his application for protection of his salary before the relevant committee and fix his salary properly in the professors scale after duly protecting the previous salary. It becomes obvious that the query by the Registrar on the one hand and the response by the petitioner on the other centred round the question as to what was the petitioners last salary in readers scaleat Karnataka University pursuant to the revision of readers pay scale as per Sen Commission recommendations. The salary certificate which was subsequently issued to the petitioner by the Karnataka University dated 8-5-1978 also bears out the fact that the petitioner was in receipt of the following emoluments on 31-8-1977 as reader in English in the scale of Rs. 1200-1900: Rs. 1780.00 Pay Rs. 71.20 H.R.A ------------- Rs. 1851-20 total It appears that thereafter the question of fixation of petitioners starting salary was referred to the Executive Council which was the competent authority-respondent No. 2 herein. The Executive Council took up the case of the petitioner for consideration along with cases of three other applicants and others who were raising similar grievance regarding protection of their last pay drawn before they joined as lecturers or professors in the University School of Languages. The minutes of the Executive Councils meeting of 22-10-1977 are brought on record alongwith additional affidavit in reply filed by the Registrar of the University. These minutes show that four applications were received in this connection, three by lecturers in different subjects appointed in the University School of Languages, viz. Dr. Bhagwatiprasad Pandya, Dr. R. G. Gupta and Dr. Suman J. Shah who were appointed as lecturers in Sanskrit. Hindi and Gujarati respectively, while the fourth person listed for consideration was the petitioner who was appointed as professor in English in the School of Languages of the first respondent. In case of all the four applicants, the Executive Council in its resolution dated 22-10-1977 noted that it was decided after some discussion, the detailed information may be called for regarding salary, pay scales and allowances which these teachers were getting in the concerned institutions before they joined the respondent-University. Thereafter, all the details were called for. In the meantime, the petitioner had also supplied details about his revised salary in the Karnataka University. It is not in dispute that the petitioners basic salary in the Karnataka University as reader in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 was fixed at Rs. 1780.00 as on 31-7-1977. Thereafter the second respondent in its meeting held on 25-2-1978 took up for consideration the question of upward revision of basic pay to be awarded to the concerned teachers who had joined the University and who were claiming protection of their last pay drawn in other institutions from which they were drafted to the University School of Languages. In the said minutes which are also produced by the Registrar of the respondent- University in his additional affidavit, cases of 7 such teachers were considered. They are as under:

(3.) . The Registrar of the respondent University has filed affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. Thereafter, because of the amendment granted to the petition, introducing paras 30A to 30F, further affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Registrar and it is followed by affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder by the petitioner.