Dismissed

Manbodh Ram v. the State of Biahr and Ors.

Patna HC17 Nov 2014CWJC/9269/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Registrar of a Bihar University, challenged a government resolution granting a higher pay scale to Registrars based on specific UGC qualifications. The High Court dismissed the writ application, holding that pay fixation is an executive function and the decision was prospective for qualified persons thereafter. The court found the petitioner did not meet qualifications at

What the court decided

AI extract

Manbodh Ram Vs the State of Biahr and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9269 of 2010

¶3

====================================================== 1. Manbodh Ram S/O Late Sukhi Ram R/O Shaileshpuri Chourharmal Nagar, P.O. Anisabad, P.S. Phulwari, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Biahr 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Higher Education Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Finance Commissioner Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s

¶5

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Dr. Mayanand Jha & Mr. Shyama Kant Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal With Maruth Nath Roy, AC to SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUDGMENT

¶6

4 17-11-2014 1. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1990 by Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission ( Annexure-2), the petitioner was selected and appointed as Registrar of Bbabasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur vide office order dated 22.11.1993 with immediate effect “in the prescribed scale of pay”. The pay scale as prescribed in the said advertisement for the post of Registrar was shown to be Rs. 1900-75-2500. He continued to work as Registrar till the date he attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2005.

¶7

This is also not in dispute that upon his appointment as Registrar he was given scale of Rs. 3700-5000 which scale was

¶8

¶9

effective from 1.1.1986 The petitioner received this scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000, which fact is not in dispute and he never raised any objection against him being placed in the scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000. In the present writ application, however, it is the plea of the petitioner that the said scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000 was wrongly fixed in his favour and was against the recommendation of the University Grants Commission. According to him, the scale of Registrar of a University should be at par with the Professor of the University which was 4500 to 7300 with effect from 1.1.1996. According to him the petitioner was wrongly given the Reader’s scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000 upon his appointment as Registrar of the University. Subsequently, with effect from 1.1.1996 the pay scale of the teachers and Officers of the Universities in Bihar was revised. Rs.12000 to 16500 replaced the scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000 whereas Rs. 16400 to 22400 replaced the earlier scale of Rs. 4500 to 7300. Since the petitioner was given scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000, he was placed in revised scale of Rs. 12000 to 16500 with effect from 1.1.1996. The claim of the petitioner is that this happened because the petitioner was wrongly placed in the scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000 in place of Rs. 4500 to 7300 and therefore his pay scale was wrongly revised with effect from 1.1.1996 in the scale of Rs. 12000 to 16500 instead of Rs. 16400 to 22400. It appears that by

¶10

¶11

Memo no. 871 dated 15.3.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary Human Resource Development, Government of Bihar, it has been decided to revise the scale of Registrar of the Universities by putting them in the scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 from the date of issuance of the order mentioning specifically eligibility recommended along with pay structure may be given effect to in fresh appointment against respective posts. In the background of these facts the petitioner has sought for the following relief in the writ application.

¶12

“That this application is being filed for quashing a part of the resolution as contained in memo no. 878 Patna dated 15.3.2010 issued under the authority of the Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar whereby and whereunder the Govt. of Bihar has decided for the revise scale of the Registrar of the Universities in the scale of Rs. 16,400-450-20900-500-22400 from date of issuance of the order and it was further clarified that the eligibilities recommended along with pay structure may be given effects in the fresh appointment against the respective post without considering the facts that the University Grant Commission has recommended for revised scale of Rs. 16400-450-20900-500-22400 instead of 4500150-5700-200-7300 vide letter dated 27.7.1998 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of India and same have been accepted after long interval of time by the State Government.”

¶13

The petitioner in support of his plea has relied upon a

¶14

resolution of the State Government dated 7.8.1989 whereby, the

¶15

¶16

University Professors have been given the scale of Rs. 4500 to 7300 with effect from 1.1.1986 and has taken a plea that the petitioner, holding the post of the Registrar of the University is entitled for scale of University Professors. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon a letter dated 27.7.1998 issued by the Director, Ministry of Human Resource Development ( Department of Education), Government of India addressed to the Secretary University Grants Commission, New Delhi in support of his letter that the Government of India has revised the pay scale of the Registrars of the Universities to 16400 to 22400 from 4500 to 7300.

¶17

The claim of the petitioner for scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 is based on the reasoning that he was entitled for replacement scale of Rs. 4500 to 7300 and not Rs. 3700 to 5000.

¶18

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar stating therein that in the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Registrar against which the petitioner had applied and pursuant to which he was finally selected, pay scale of Rs. 1900-75-2500 was disclosed. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 2004 the pay scale of Registrar was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 and pay scale of Registrar was revised to Rs. 12000-375-

¶19

¶20

It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the University Grants Commission vide its letter dated 25.7.1998 revised the pay scale of the Teachers of the University

¶21

and the College following the revision of pay scale of Central Government employees on recommendation of fifth Central Pay Commission. In the said letter, University Grants Commission recommended the pay scale of Registrar in the University as Rs.16400 to 22400, being replacement of Scale of Rs. 4500 to 7300. The University Grants Commission, however, fixed different minimum qualification for the post of Registrar which is as follows:-

¶22

“(A) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade of “B” in the UGC seven point scale.

¶23

(B) At least 15 years of experience as Lecturer (Senior Scale)/ Lecturer with 8 years in readers grade along with experience in education administration.

¶24

¶25

Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institution of higher education.

¶26

¶27

15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.”

¶28

It has also been stated and which fact has not

¶29

been denied that minimum qualification for appointment of

¶30

¶31

Registrar in the Universities in Bihar was different and lower than the minimum qualification fixed by the University Grants Commission as noted above. It was in this background of the fact that the State Government after due consideration of the recommendation of the University Grants Commission dated 25.7.1998 has revised the pay scale of Registrar to 16400 to 22400 vide its resolution No. 878 dated 15.3.2010 with effect from the date of issuance of the order. It has been mentioned that with effect from the date of issuance of the order, minimum qualification as recommended by the University Grants Commission has also been implemented for appointment to the post of Registrar. The resolution further, clarifies that working Registrars having qualification as per the norms of University Grants Commission will be entitled of pay revision to Rs. 16400 to 22400.

¶32

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had been representing the authorities claiming scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 in the light of the revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996. Reference has been made in this regard to a copy of the representation dated 29.10.2004 addressed to the Hon’ble Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna. It has been submitted

¶33

¶34

on behalf of the petitioner that by granting scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 from the date of issuance of the resolution dated 15.3.2010, the State of Bihar has created a class without any reasonable nexus of such Registrars appointed before 15.3.2010 and those appointed thereafter, which according to him is impermissible, without any rational and is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

As has been indicated above, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner retired while holding the post of Registrar in January, 2005. He was placed in the scale of Rs.3700 to 5000 as on the date of his retirement and he was subsequently, given the scale of Rs. 12000 to 16400 with effect from 1.1.1996 being the replacement scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000. He did not raise any grievance against grant of pay of Rs. 3700 to 5000. This is to be noted and as would be evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application that the State Government revised the pay scale of Registrar from Rs. 3700 to 5000 to Rs.12000 to 16500 by a resolution vide memo no. 1972 dated 12.10.2004 with effect from 1.1.1996. If the petitioner had any grievance as regards higher pay on the basis of the letter of the Government of India as noted above dated 27.7.1998, it was open to him to have questiond the said decision to the extent it

¶36

¶37

related to revision of pay scale of Registrar of the University within a reasonable time. In the year 2010 when the Government took a decision to grant the scale of Rs.4500 to 7300 by resolution as contained in memo no. 878 dated 15.3.2010, the petitioner is now raising a grievance by filing a present writ application that the said scale should have been made admissible for persons working as Registrar prior to 15.3.2010 also. In my opinion, the plea of the petitioner is not acceptable.

¶38

It is settled law that fixation of pay scale is essentially an executive function and with effect from which date a particular pay scale should be implemented is purely within the domain of employer. The High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily does not interfere in such matters. As would be evident from the counter affidavit, the said scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 has been allowed to persons holding the post of Registrar after enhancing the minimum qualification for the post with a clarification that those Registrars already working with the qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission, shall receive the said scale. The petitioner retired in the year 2005. It is not his claim that he fulfilled the criteria laid down by the

¶39

¶40

University Grants Commission for the post of Registrar as on the date of his retirement. He has wrongly placed reliance upon Government of India letter dated 27.7.1998 to claim that scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 should have been given to the petitioner as the said letter is confined to revision of pay scales of teachers in the Central Universities upon the recommendation of fifth Central Pay Commission.

¶41

In my opinion, giving higher scale of pay on the basis of educational qualification does not amount to any discrimination and it is well settled that the Government can create higher scale of pay with persons holding higher qualification. In the present case only such persons have been given the scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 with effect from the date of notification of the State Government i.e. 15.3.2010 who either fulfilled the criteria as on the said date and were serving as Registrars or to be appointed on the basis of qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission after 15.3.2010. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Gabriel Saver Fernandes and ors Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. reported in (1995) Suppl.(1) SCC 149, I am of the view that there is no unconstitutionality by making classification between qualified and unqualified person for given them different pay

¶42

¶43

scale. Further, as I have noted above, the petitioner retired in January, 2005 itself. The pay scale of Rs. 16400 to 22400 has been decided to be given to the Registrar of the Universities by the State Government by the notification in question dated 15.3.2010 prospectively. There is no reason and there is no basis on which the petitioner can claim that he should be given the said scale by applying the resolution retrospectively particularly when the Government of Bihar decided to grant scale of Rs. 12000 to 16500 with effect from 1.1.1996 by a resolution issued vide memo no. 1972 dated 12.10.2004 against which the petitioner did not raise any objection.

¶44

This is also to be noted that the petitioner has raised his claim that his pay was wrongly fixed in the scale of Rs. 3700 to 5000 instead of Rs. 4500 to 7300 with effect from 1.1.1986, such claim is belated on the face of it. This application in my opinion, has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶45

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶46

ArunKumar/U

Manbodh Ram v. the State of Biahr and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manbodh Ram v. the State of Biahr and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gujeshwar YADAVand Anr. Vs Kameshwar Singh Darrbhanga San

Shashi Shekhar Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Satya Narayan Prasad and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Umeshwar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Ram Yatan Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.