S.L.TANK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the respondent-State decided to revise the pay scales of teachers working in the Universities and Colleges which was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. A circular in this context was issued on 8.3.1989. It was decided that a lecturer on his initial appointment shall be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000; the pay scale of lecturer(Senior Scale) was Rs. 3000-5000 and that of lecturer (Selection Grade) was Rs. 3700-5700. A lecturer after completion of 8 years' service was entitled for senior scale of Rs.3000-5000. He was further entitled for the selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 on completion of 13 years regular service provided he fulfilled the requisite conditions laid down in the circular dated 8.3.189. Since the petitioners fulfilled the requisite conditions for the grant of Selection grade of 3700-5700, their cases were considered by the Screening Committee constituted by respondent No.1 and having been found suitable the petitioners were placed in the aforesaid selection grade vide order dated 13.11.1989. Prior to 1.1.1986 petitioner No.1 has been getting his annual increment w.e.f. 1st February of each year. Similarly the date of annual increment of petitioner No.2 is 1st July of each year. The grievance of the petitioners is that after placing them in the selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 as on 1.1.1986, their date of annual increment has been altered and instead of granting the next annual increment to petitioner No.1 as on 1.2.1986 and to petitioner No.2 as on 1.7.1986, they have been granted the annual increment w.e.f. 1.1.1987. As a result thereof the petitioner No.1 whose pay was entitled to be fixed at Rs. 3825/- as on 1.2.1986 has been fixed as such on 1.1.1987. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to retain their old date of annual increment as per Annexure VI of the circular Annexure P-1. The illustration, as given in the Annexure VI of Annexure P-1 further makes it clear that the date of increment as it was prior to placement in the revised pay scale, would remain in tact and some placement in the revised pay scale will not alter the same. Initially by following the pay fixation formula laid down in Annexure VI of Annexure P-1, petitioner No.1 was actually granted his annual increment as on 1.2.1986 and his pay was accordingly fixed. On coming to know the fact that they have been deprived of the benefit of annual increment as per their old dates, they represented to respondent No.2 through proper channel and the Principal of the College recommended their representations dated 20.4.1990 and 17.1.1990 respectively. Despite sending various reminders their representations have not been decided as yet. Hence this petition.

(2.) IN reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 the stand taken is that as per Government instructions (Annexure P-1) the earlier scale of pay of Rs. 700/1600 was revised to Rs. 2200/4000 and, therefore, the pay of the lecturers (including petitioners) in the scale of Rs. 700/1600 was to be fixed initially in the corresponding revised grade of Rs. 2200/4000 w.e.f. 1.1.86 and thereafter they were to be placed in the senior grade of Rs. 3000/5000 or selection grade of Rs. 3700/5700 w.e.f. 1.1.86 on fulfilling the conditions of Annexure P-1. It is averred that petitioner No.1-S.L.Tank was drawing Rs. 1250/- in the old scale of Rs. 700/1600 and his pay was fixed in the revised grade of Rs. 2200/4000 at Rs. 3200/- with next date of increment on 1.2.86 i.e. original date of his increment. Subsequently he was placed in the selection grade of Rs. 3700/5700 w.e.f. 1.1.86. Since he was placed at the initial stage in the grade of Rs.3700/5700, his next date of increment was admissible after completing one year of service at the stage of Rs. 3700/- in the grade of Rs. 3700/5700 on 1.1.87. It is further averred that in the same manner petitioner No.2 Ram Vir 's pay was fixed in the revised grade but with the date of increment as 1.7.86. As per the respondents Annexure VI does not support the contention of the petitioners as they were not in the pay scale of selection grade of Rs. 1200/1840 or 1200/1900 which was directly revised to Rs. 3700/5700. It is further the case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 that para 3 of Annexure VI does not support the contention of the petitioners because the illustrations given therein relate to grade to grade revision only and as such are not applicable in their case because the petitioners had to clear a screening process before they were determined fit to have been placed in the selection grade.

(3.) A perusal of the circular dated 8.3.1989 envisages the following conditions for the grant of selection grade to a Lecturer who is in the senior scale:-