ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY Vs. P RANJANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No. 3233 of 2012 in WP No. 32889 of 2010. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who joined the services of the erstwhile Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) in the post of 'Producer' in the year 1985. It is claimed that the post of Producer held by the writ petitioner was confirmed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as an "Academic Non-Vocational" post and accordingly she was extended the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme and thereafter the senior scale of pay was also granted to her on completion of five years. According to the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein, right from the date of her recruitment she has been holding a teaching post. Admittedly, she was also granted Pay Band-IV on par with the Readers/Professors from February, 2009 onwards. However, by proceedings dated 10.12.2010 the English and Foreign Languages University (for short 'the University') which is the successor in interest of CIEFL, placed the petitioner in Pay Band-III on certain clarifications stated to have been received from UGC. Aggrieved by the same, she filed WP No. 32889 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the proceedings dated 10.12.2010 are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 26(3) of the UGC Act, 1956 apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. This Court, while issuing rule nisi, by order dated 30.12.2010 in WPMP No. 41784 of 2010 suspended the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2010. While so, by subsequent order dated 12.10.2011 the writ petitioner was informed by the University that she was to retire from the service of the University on 30.6.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years.

(2.) In the circumstances, the writ petitioner filed a fresh application being WPMP No. 3233 of 2012 in which the order under appeal came to be passed by the learned Single Judge suspending the proceedings dated 12/18.10.2011 insofar as it pertains to the writ petitioner and directing the University to continue her in service till she is 65 years of age. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.6.2012, the present writ appeal is filed by the University.

(3.) We have heard Sri K, Ramakantha Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/University, Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner as well as Sri Lakshmi Kanth, the learned Counsel representing Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for UGC.