A.NAGAMANI Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crux of the case of petitioner, insofar it touches the grievance in the writ petition, is that the petitioner availed Extra Ordinary Leave of

(2.) years 10 months and 13 days on private affairs while working as Assistant Professor in the respondent-Osmania University. In accordance with the Career Advancement Scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Revised Scales of Pay-1996, the respondentUniversity issued letter dtd. 17/2/2001 promoting the petitioner as Associate Professor from 27/7/1998. Thereafter, the respondent University issued orders dtd. 22/9/2004 modifying the promotion date as 26/4/2001. Challenging the order dtd. 22/9/2004 she filed WP No.22039 of 2004 before this Court whereupon this Court set aside the order dtd. 22/9/2004 leaving it open to the respondent University, if it chooses to take action, to do so after issuance of Show Cause notice and considering her explanation. The respondent University cancelled the order dtd. 22/9/2004 and issued a Show Cause notice dtd. 4/3/2005 directing the petitioner to Show Cause as to why the excess pay of Rs.2,05,829.00 should not be recovered from the petitioner on account of pay fixation from 27/7/1998 instead of 26/4/2001. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 6/4/2005. Thereafter, the impugned Order dtd. 6/8/2005 was passed by the respondentUniversity directing to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner as reflected in the Show Cause notice dtd. 4/3/2005. 2. Mr. B. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, contends that there is no authority for the respondent University under the Career Advancement Scheme, or the Service Conditions stipulated for Teachers in Universities and Colleges, to discount the Extra Ordinary Leave for computing the eligible service period for promotion. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers in Universities, Colleges & Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998. Learned counsel Mr. Krishna would therefore contend that the order dtd. 6/8/2005 directing recovery of alleged excess amount of Rs.2,05,829.00 by effecting the date of promotion from 17/2/2001 instead of 27/7/1998 is bad in law, and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard Ms.Hemalatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent University.