Partly allowed

Ccs Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar v. A.S. Nandwal & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Oct 2008LPA/216/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Writ Petition and dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal, directing the University to grant a revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 to Research/Teaching/Extension Associates from their date of appointment, even though they lacked a Ph.D. at the time, to avoid manifest disparity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to grant the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 from the respective dates of appointment and pay consequential arrears within three months.

Ccs Haryana Agriculture University… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶2

-: 1 :-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008 Date of decision: October 4, 2008.

¶5

Haryana Agricultural University

¶6

... Appellant(s)

¶7

¶8

A.S. Nandwal & Others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for the Appellants.

¶15

Shri Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Shri C.S. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

- Surya Kant, J.

¶18

This order shall dispose of LPA No.216 of 2008 and CWP

¶19

No.3333 of 1998 together as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts have been derived from the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶20

[2]. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment

¶21

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008 -: 2 :-

¶22

dated 19.12.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.11430 of 1998 has been allowed and the respondents held entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- with effect from the dates of their initial appointment.

¶23

[3]. The case has a long trail of facts behind it, which may be summarized as follows:-

¶24

[3.1]. The respondents - writ petitioners, were appointed as Research /Teaching/Extension Associates in the appellant-Haryana Agricultural University on different dates between 1.1.1976 to 8.9.1980. It appears that while some of them were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.600-950, the rest were appointed at a gross monthly salary of Rs.600/- along with an annual increase of Rs.40/-. Meanwhile, the University Grants Commission (UGC) recommended the grant of pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- with effect from 1.1.1973 for teachers.

¶25

[3.2]. The Academic Council of the appellant University in its meeting held on 12.2.1976 considered the issue of qualifications to be prescribed for the revised pay scales on the pattern of UGC and resolved to grant the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 to those who had either two years experience as a Research/Extension/Teaching Associate or worked as Reader or an equivalent with Ph.D. in the concerned discipline.

¶26

[3.3]. The respondents were not granted the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- as they were ineligible for want of a Ph.D. degree.

¶27

[3.4]. On 5.5.1977, the appellant-University further resolved to create a regular pay scale of Rs.600-950 for those who did not possess a Ph.D. degree. There is no quarrel that the aforesaid pay scale was made admissible to the respondents also.

¶28

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

[3.5]. On July 1, 1977, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), an Apex Body of the Agricultural Universities, recommended to extend the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 to the Research/ Extension/Teaching Associates as they were also recognized as Teachers as per the University Statute.

¶31

[3.6]. On 8.9.1980, the Board of Management of the appellant University decided to grant the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 to its Research/Teaching/Extension Associates subject to the condition that “those who hold the Masters degree will be allowed to cross the stage of Rs.1300/- only after they complete the Ph.D. in the required discipline”. It relaxed the condition of a Ph.D. degree for the grant of pay scale of Rs.7001600/- and resolved that the same may be obtained within a period of 5 years failing which the incumbent would cease to earn increment till the Ph.D. is completed.

¶32

[3.7]. The respondents, thus, came to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- with effect from 8.9.1980. Meanwhile the respondents are stated to have completed their Ph.D. also.

¶33

[3.8]. The respondents as well as the similarly situated other Research/Teaching/Extension Associates, however, staked their claim to the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 from 1.1.1976 and/or the dates of their respective appointments in terms of the decision taken by the ICAR on July 1, 1977. One Dr. Nihal Singh, appointed as a Research Assistant in the Udaipur University (Rajasthan), successfully approached the Rajasthan High Court and got the pay scale of Rs.700-1600/- with effect from July 2, 1974, i.e., the date of his appointment though notionally. The Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble

¶34

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008 -: 4 :-

¶35

Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.173 of 1982, dismissed on 7.11.1983. [3.9]. Taking cue from the said judgment, J.C. Mehla and others, who were also working as Research/Teaching/Extension Associates with the appellant University approached this Court by way of CWP No.7621 of 1987 ( J.C. Mehla v. Haryana Agricultural University ) which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 8.4.1991 with a direction to the appellant to grant them the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from the dates they were appointed with consequential arrears. The appellant University preferred LPA No.457 of 1991 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide a self-speaking order dated 24.9.1997. [3.10]. Still aggrieved, the appellant went in SLP (Civil) No.5147 of 1998 before the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.3.1998 in the following terms:-

¶36

“ Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that a factual error has appeared in the order of the High Court with regard to the re-designation of the Research/Extension Associates as Assistant Professors and he, therefore, submits that the petitioner would file a review petition in the High Court and seeks to withdraw the special leave petition. We record the statement of the learned counsel and dismiss the special leave petition as withdrawn .”

¶37

[3.11]. Thereafter, the appellant University filed Review Petition No.13 of 1998 which too met with the same fate and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.10.1998 with the following observations:-

¶38

“ ... It seems to be a question of appreciation of various notifications issued. In this context, I may refer to Annexure

¶39

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶40

-: 5 :-

¶41

P3-B dated 30^th March, 1974 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. It indicates that it was ordered that it would not be necessary for the appointment of lecturers that one should hold a Ph.D. degree. In other words, candidates holding Master's degree were eligible to be selected as lecturers on certain conditions. In other words, as per Annexure P/3-B, the requirement of qualification of Ph.D. degree was dispensed with even in case of appointment to the post of a lecturer. The post of lecturer has been equated with the post of Teaching/Research/Extension Associates in so far as it pertains to the pay scales. The question, therefore, would be whether this dispensing with requirement of qualification of Ph.D. degree can be related back to the date on which present respondents were appointed as Research/Extension Associates. In my opinion, that would be a matter for adjudication on merits and cannot be said to be a matter of factual error of redesignation of these two posts. I thus find no substance in this review petition. Hence it is dismissed. ” (emphasis applied)

¶42

[3.12]. The appellant relentlessly fought the issue and again went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court but their Lordships dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.8.2004 after observing that:-

¶43

“ Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

Leave granted in SLP(C) No.8684/2004.

¶45

Though learned counsel for the appellant made her best efforts to show that the respondents were not entitled to the revised scale of pay prior to 8.9.1980, we find that appropriate pleadings were not there before the High Court and therefore such new pleas which are sought to be established with reference to certain documents which were not before the High Court and/or appropriate pleadings cannot be entertained by this Court in these appeals. They are

¶46

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008 -: 6 :-

¶47

accordingly dismissed .” (emphasis applied)

¶48

[3.13]. Much before that, the respondents had also filed the writ petition which was directed to be heard along with CWP No.7621 of 1987 (decided on 8.4.1991). However, the same could not be tagged along and decided with the said case.

¶49

[3.14]. While allowing the respondents' writ petition, the learned Single Judge vide the judgment under appeal has held that the previous judgment of this Court in LPA No.457 of 1991 has already been upheld by the Apex Court and the issue involved herein having been squarely answered, there was no necessity to go into the merits of the controversy. The respondents' claim for the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from the dates of their initial appointment has been accordingly accepted.

¶50

[4]. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and have carefully gone through the record. [5]. The issue involved in this appeal falls in a narrow compass. Learned counsel for the appellant while conceding fairly that the decision in J.C. Mehla 's case held the fort against them, strenuously urged that the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP kept the question open though the University's effort to show that the respondents were not entitled to the revised pay scale prior to 8.9.1980 was held to be an exercise in futility for the reason that the:- “ appropriate pleadings were not there before the High Court and, therefore, such new pleas which are sought to be established with reference to certain documents which were not before the High Court and/or appropriate pleadings cannot be entertained by this Court in these appeals ”. According to the learned counsel all the relevant documents along with appropriate counter affidavit are on the

¶51

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶52

-: 7 :-

¶53

record of this case, therefore, the question as to whether or not the respondents are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 prior to 8.9.1980, deserves to be reconsidered by this Court. It is urged that since none of the respondents possessed the essential qualification of Ph.D. at the time of their appointment as Research/Teaching/Extension Associates, they could not have claimed the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 granted consciously by the University to those teachers only who possessed the required qualification, i.e., a Ph.D. degree or its equivalent. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, contended that the said plea has been effectively gone into by this Court in J.C. Mehla 's case (supra).

¶54

[6]. The contention noticed above though appears attractive, however, momentary only. We say so for the reason that in LPA No.457 of 1991 ( Haryana Agricultural University v. J.C. Mehla & Ors. ), it was specifically urged on behalf of the appellant that “the respondents did not possess the requisite qualification to be an Assistant Professor” as they merely possessed the qualification of M.Sc. and that “ to be an Assistant Professor one has to possess the qualification of Ph.D.”.

¶55

[7]. The above quoted contention was turned down by the Division Bench while dismissing the LPA.

¶56

[8]. Uninfluenced by the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench in J.C. Mehla & Ors. 's case (supra), we have carefully considered the contention that unless the respondents possessed the Ph.D. degree they could not have claimed the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 prior to 8.9.1980. We find from the decisions taken from time to time by the appellant – University that the requirement of Ph.D. degree was never such an inviolable qualification that non-possession thereof would disqualify the Research/Extension/Teaching

¶57

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶58

-: 8 :-

¶59

Associates from the pay scale made admissible to other members of the 'teaching faculty'. While prescribing Ph.D. as an essential qualification for appointment to the teaching faculty in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600 on 12.2.1976, the appellant – University itself laid down alternative qualifications in some of the disciplines. After some time, the Academic Council recommended Ph.D. or 3 years experience in the discipline concerned as one of the qualifications for appointment in the pay scale of Rs.700-1600. It was then decided that those who did not possess a Ph.D. degree at the time of their selection, will obtain the same within a period of 5 years after their joining, failing which they will cease to earn increments till they complete the Ph.D. The non-possession of the Ph.D. degree by the members of the teaching faculty, thus, had no effect on the academic standards of the University save as to the claim of revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600. In our considered view, when the UGC, the ICAR or the appellant University themselves relaxed the standard and brought the nonPh.D. teachers at par with those who possessed a Ph.D. degree, no matter in phases, the rationale behind classification of teaching faculty in different pay scales based upon the differentiation in academic qualifications, also disappeared.

¶60

[9]. That apart, a large section of Research/Teaching/Extension Associates working with the appellant – University has already got the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from the dates of their appointment, i.e., prior to 8.9.1980 under the orders of this Court in J.C. Mehla 's case (supra). The respondents' writ petition filed in the year 1988 was also directed to be heard along with CWP No.7621 of 1987 ( J.C. Mehla 's case) though it could not be tagged along with the said case at the

¶61

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶62

-: 9 :-

¶63

time of the final hearing. It is quite possible that some of the respondents may be senior to the writ petitioners in J.C. Mehla 's case. A contrary view in the present case would necessarily lead not only to manifest disparity between two sets of similarly placed members of the teaching faculty but to a perennial pay anomaly also and that too due to a fortuitous circumstance like non-disposal of the writ petition of the respondents along with J.C. Mehla 's case (supra) even when an order to that effect was passed by the motion bench.

¶64

[10]. We may usefully quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , 2006(2) SCT 458 (SC) wherein, deprecating the discriminatory implementation of revised pay scales qua those employees only who had approached the Court successfully, their Lordships observed that:-

¶65

“ 16. The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent-University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21.6.1989 recorded by

¶66

L.P.A. No.216 of 2008

¶67

-: 10 :-

¶68

the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos.21487-21506/1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time.”

¶69

[10]. For the reasons afore-stated, while we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same, CWP No.3333 of 1998 is allowed with a direction to the University to grant revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 to the petitioners from the dates of their respective appointments and pay the consequential arrears within a period of three months from today.

¶70

[11]. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

[ Surya Kant ] Judge

¶72

October 4, 2008. [ T.S. Thakur ] kadyan Chief Justice

Ccs Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar v. A.S. Nandwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ccs Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar v. A.S. Nandwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh Vs Gurbaksh Singh

Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Janak Raj

Harminder Singh Vs Atma Singh and Ors.

Munshi Ram Vs State of Punjab

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samity and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Khushwant Singh Vs State of Hry. and Ors.