SHIV GIAN SINGH Vs. UION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined as Physical Training Instructor in the Punjab Engineering College on regular basis in 1954, a post which was re -designated as Lecturer in Physical Education on 19.12.1974, as per the order of the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner was placed in the University Grants Commission pay scale of Rs. 700 -1600, which was further revised to Rs. 2200 - 4000 with effect from 1.1.1986. The petitioner superannuated on 31.3.1987, after the revision of pay scales.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Chandigarh Administration (Education Department) letter dated Civil Writ Petition No. 4063 of 2008 2 28.2.1989 (Annexure P -7), a senior scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 was admissible to such persons who had completed 8 years of service, as per paras 8(b) and 9(d) of Appendix -II. The objective of this was set out in this letter i.e. need to attract and retain the best talent in the country as teachers in institutions of technical education and in order to encourage research. Similarly, the selection grade of Rs. 3700 -5700 was admissible for those who had completed 16 years of service, and had participated in two Refresher Courses/Summer Institutes, each of the duration of four weeks or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programme of comparable quality, as may be prescribed by the University Grants Commission.

(3.) THE petitioner, faced with the aforesaid position, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4063 of 2008 3 Original Application No.956/CH of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The petition was resisted by the respondents on merits pleading that for grant of selection grade of Rs. 3700 -5700, it was incumbent upon a person to have completed 16 years of regular service. Not only that, condition 8(b) stipulated that four weeks Refresher Course be attended by the concerned employee for being eligible for the senior scale though that condition was relaxable on completion of 16 years of service. The petitioner is stated to have never attended any four weeks Refresher Course right till he demitted office. The total period as a Lecturer which is to be counted for the grant of selection grade is stated to be less than 16 years and, thus, the claim of the petitioner is alleged to be unsustainable. The petitioner, it is, however, conceded fulfills the requirement of 8 years of service for senior scale but did not attend the Refresher Course and did not have consistent satisfactory reports and, thus, there was no occasion to claim the relief before the Tribunal. Another aspect which has been noted is that there were certain waivers granted in terms of letter dated 25.4.1991, but the same are stated to be not admissible to the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.3.1987, much prior to that date and without completing 16 years of service. 4. The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2006, dismissed the Original Application. On the issue of limitation, which was examined by the Tribunal, it was opined that since the petitioner had been pursuing a wrong remedy, that time Civil Writ Petition No. 4063 of 2008 4 period was liable to be excluded from consideration and, thus, the delay was liable to be condoned. In any case, it was observed that payment of monetary benefits, particularly pay scale, is recurring cause of action. However, on merits of the controversy, the plea of the respondents was accepted that the petitioner was not granted the senior scale of Rs. 3000 -5000 on completion of 8 years of service as Lecturer and not having completed 16 years of service, was not entitled to the benefit of selection grade of Rs. 3700 -5700, having not even attended the Refresher Courses as prescribed, till his retirement. The revision of pay scales is stated to have been granted to the Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Instructors by way of career advancement and the post occupied by the petitioner was re - designated as Lecturer in Physical Education with effect from 1.1.1973. The period of 8 years or 16 years of service for purposes of grant of senior scale/selection grade was, thus, opined to require counting from the date of such designation and not the entire length of service, as alleged by the petitioner.