RAMLALA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed against the order dated 14.9.2012 issued by the respondent No.1, therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this order. However, the facts are taken from W.P.No.17382/2012(s).

(2.) The petitioner No.1 is an Association of all the Professors appointed in the Higher Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner No.1 and other petitioners in the connected writ petition are all promoted Professors working in the Government colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The direct recruitment or promotion of Professors has been done under the provisions of M.P. Education Services (Collegiate Branch) (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as Gazetted Rules for brevity). It is contended by the petitioners that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as UGC for brevity) has made a Scheme of revising the pay scales, prescribing the promotional prospects by way of a Career Advancement Scheme, as also the age of superannuation. The said Scheme has duly been approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, and has subsequently been formulated in the Regulations, made by the UGC. It is contended by the petitioners that since they have been given promotion on the post of Professor, the pay band revised and prescribed by the UGC in its Scheme and Regulations was duly made applicable to them by the State Government after taking a policy decision in its Cabinet of Ministers. The order in this respect was issued on 16.4.2010 and the revised pay bands were made applicable with effect from 1.1.2006. After fixation of salary of the petitioners in such manner, the benefit was extended to them. However, all of a sudden, the impugned order dated 14.9.2012 has been issued reducing the Academic Grade Pay (hereinafter referred to as the AGP for brevity) granted to the petitioners, arbitrarily without even obtaining any approval from the Cabinet of Ministers, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing present petition. It is contended by the petitioners that since UGC is the regulatory body prescribed under a Parliamentary Act, if a regulation is made by the UGC, duly approved by the Central Government and published in the Gazette of India, it would became a law and is binding on the State Government. It cannot be unilaterally changed in exercise of whatsoever power available with the State Government as the State is bound by such Parliamentary Legislation and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. It is contended by the petitioners in both the writ petitions that the action on the part of respondent-State is arbitrary, malafide, bias and without any authority of law as in terms of the instructions issued by the Central Government coupled with the Regulations made by the UGC, no power was available to the State Government to reduce AGP available to the petitioners in such a manner. This being so, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, by filing a return, the respondent-State has contended that the UGC norms have not been violated by the State. On the other hand, there was a mistake committed in understanding the decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers, inasmuch as, persons like petitioners who were not entitled to the grant of AGP at a higher rate prescribed by the UGC for the post of Professor as the petitioners were not getting the salary in the pre-revised scale indicated in the appropriate table appended with the Regulations of the UGC, therefore, the mistake committed in issuing the order pursuance to the decision taken by the Cabinet of Ministers was rectified by issuing the impugned order dated 14.9.2012. It is contended by the respondents in their return that since the respondents have not changed the decision made by the Cabinet of Ministers nor have taken any steps which is not prescribed by the UGC or is in violation of the norms of the UGC, the entire stand taken by the petitioners in their petition is misconceived. It is contended that since the law is very clear on the point that the mistake committed in granting anything which is not provided by law, could be remedied at any stage, if by order dated 14.9.2012, it is directed that the petitioners would be entitled to grant of AGP @ Rs.9,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- per month and excess amount paid to them is required to be recovered, no wrong is committed by the respondents. It is put-forth that in view of the settled law, such an action can always be taken by the State and no writ can be issued restraining such an action of the respondents. It is further put-forth that the petitioners cannot be treated as Professor as they are simply Assistant Professors who are getting the benefit of selection grade pay scale and any upgradation in the pay alone will not make them the full-fledged Professors. Thus, it is contended that both the petitions are based on misconceived and misleading facts and as the petitioners are harping on the wrong premises, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.