RAVINDER SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Ravinder Singh Saini and others, who are working on the post of Assistant Professors/Professors as also Punjab Agricultural University Teachers Association through Dr. J.S. Brar seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated August 8, 1990 to the extent it grants sanction for the grant of increment only to those who have done Ph.D. and have joined on January 12, 1988 or there after. The prayer of the petitioners, who came to occupy their respective posts prior to January 12, 1988 is that they are also entitled to the advance increments which are admissible to those who have done Ph.D. or M.Phil but appointed after Jan 12, 1988.

(2.) The relief to the extent referred to above, stems from the facts which need to be briefly noticed. The Union of India took a decision to revise the pay scale of the teachers working in the Universities and Colleges in view of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission on June 17, 1987. The decision of the Government of India on the revision of pay scales of teachers in the Universities and Colleges w.e.f. June 1, 1986 and provision of financial assistance to the State Govt. to adopt and implement the scheme were communicated to all the State Govts. and Union Territories. The scheme was, however, modified on July 22, 1988. The modification introduces encouragement in the research but no details are required as the same is not relevant to decide the controversy in hand. The candidate who passed Ph.D. or M.Phil degree was to the sanctioned 3 and 1 advance increments respectively in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- alongwith the benefit of corresponding years of service for the purpose of promotion. This decision is reflected in a letter issued by respondent No. 2 on July 22, 1988, a copy whereof is on records of this case as Annexure P-1. It requires to be mentioned here that in the opening para of the letter it was stated that the revision of pay scales will be effected from January 1, 1986. The case of the petitioners is that they joined the Punjab Agriculture University-respondent No. 3 after January 1, 1986 and they are all Ph.D. The respective dates when they passed Ph.D. and the dates of joining with the respondent University have been tabulated in para 3 of the petition. Whereas the persons mentioned in para 3 did their Ph.D. before January 1, 1986, the other petitioners did so after the said date. The U.G.C. grades as reflected in Annexure P-1 were adopted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. (here-in-after mentioned as I.C.A.R.) and a letter to that effect was written by Dr. U.C. Upadhayay, the then Assistant Director General to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University requesting him to send the claims of the revised pay scales so that I.C.A.R. was able to release 80% of additional liability. This is clear from the letter Annexure P-2. The respondent Government of Punjab accepted the scheme of the Union Government on the condition that 80% of the financial liability would be borne by the I.C.A.R. and Government of India and State Government was to be liable to share 20% of the financial liability. The decision to the effect mentioned above and that is reflected in Annexure P-3, was implemented by the Punjab Agriculture University w.e.f. January 1, 1986 as would be clear from the order Annexure P-4 which came to be passed on May 27, 1989. The case of petitioners is that even though the revision of pay scales of teachers in the Universities all over the country and other measures for maintenance of higher standards were given effect from January 1, 1986, for some unknown reasons the benefits of advance increments to Ph.D. and M.Phil teachers were not given from the said date. It is stated that the petitioners are well qualified to receive this benefit which has been denied because of fortuitous circumstance of fixation of an arbitrary date i.e. January 12, 1988. It is stated that a candidate who is Ph.D./M. Phil and was appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor on January 12, 1988 or thereafter, would be entitled to 3 or 1 advance increments as the case may be. Those who have been appointed as Assistant Professors on January 1, 1986 or after that date but before January 12, 1988 were not entitled to earn said increments and that would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it would make hostile discrimination against petitioners who are similarly situated and there being no distinction between them and those who were appointed on or after January 12, 1988. This matter was raised by the petitioners before the University authorities but they were informed that advance increments would not be granted to them as they were not appointed on or after January 12, 1988. The representations of petitioners before various authorities did not yield any result. It is in these circumstances the petitioners have come asking for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) The cause of the petitioners has been opposed and two written statements have been filed, one on behalf of the Government of Punjab and the other on behalf of the Punjab Agriculture University wherein identical stand has been taken. In the written statement that has been filed by the University, it has been pleaded by way of preliminary objections that since I.C.A.R. has not been impleaded which was a necessary party, petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. On merits cause of petitioners has been opposed on the ground that as per para 12 of the Government of India's letter dated July 22, 1988, the petitioners were not entitled to the relief asked for as it is mentioned in the said para, "In order to encourage research, in continuation of Post-graduate Studies, candidates who, at the time of their recruitment as Lecturers, possess Ph.D. or M.Phil degree will be sanctioned three and one advance increments respectively in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 alongwith the benefit of corresponding years of service for the purpose of promotion. The existing Lecturers without research degree, and those similarly situated/recruited in future will be eligible for a similar benefit in service for the purpose of promotion as and when they acquire research degree, but will not be eligible for advance increments. Existing lecturers with research degree will also be eligible for a similar benefit." It has been further pleaded that as per provisions contained in para 1 of Appendix-II of Govt. of India's letter dated July 22, 1988 all teachers appointed after the date from which the scheme has been given effect will be governed by the provisions of the scheme. As the scheme was initially given effect by the University on October 6, 1988, the teachers holding Ph.D/M.Phil degrees were entitled for grant of advance increments w.e.f. October 6, 1988. However, these increments were allowed to the teachers from the date of issue of concurrence by the Punjab Government with concurrence of which only the revised scales were granted to the teachers. The Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture & Forests, Chandigarh, vide their memo dated August 8, 1990, conveyed their approval to grant these increments from January 12, 1988. Thus, the teachers who joined before January 12, 1988 were not entitled to advance increments for holding Ph.D. degree and as such no injustice has been done to them. Besides that in para 9 of the written statement it has been pleaded that it is for the respective State Government to take the decision and fix the date for the grant of any benefit/advance increment and the State of Punjab took a decision for the grant of advance increment to the teachers with Ph.D. w.e.f. January 12, 1988 and as per the approval of the Government of Punjab, the University granted the advance increments with effect from the aforesaid date. This date was fixed because the said benefit was also allowed in other Universities of the State of Punjab w.e.f. January 12, 1988 as is evident from the letter dated March 18, 1992. In view of the averments that have been noticed above, it is further pleaded that the orders Annexure P-5, P-6 and P-7 were equitable, just and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.