The petitioner's petition to quash the withdrawal of salary increments granted on the strength of his Ph.D. degree was accepted. The Court held that the degree was acquired in 2003, making the increment valid.
The petition is accepted and the impugned action of the respondents (Annexure P9-P10) withdrawing increments is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 16705 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16705 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.04.2011
Dr. Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2
MAHESH GROVER, J (ORAL)
The petitioner is the holder of Ph.D. degree in English and was granted increments in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State of Haryana, which increments were subsequently sought to be withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was not having the requisite Ph.D. degree in the year 2004 when such increments were awarded to him.
The presumption of the petitioner not having the requisite degree was based on the date of issuance of the degree which is indicated as the year 12.10.2009. The petitioner has impugned such decision and has questioned the action of the respondents in withdrawing the increments which were granted to him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had acquired the doctorate in English in the year 2003 which is reflected from the communication issued by the Registrar of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra according to which the approval for award
CWP No. 16705 of 2010
-2-
of Ph.D. degree had been taken on 07.07.2003 and it was submitted that the said degree would be conferred upon the petitioner in the ensuing university convocation which convocation took place on 12.10.2009. He further refers to Annexure P3 (copy of the degree) which is duly awarded to him which indicated that on 31.12.2003, the necessry notification of his acquisition of qualification of Ph.D. had been issued. He, thus, contends that he had acquired the doctorate degree in the year 2003 and, therefore, the increments were rightly granted to him in the year 2004 and, hence, the subsequent withdrawl of the increments is unjustified.
The respondents have contended that since the degree was issued on 12.10.2009 their action is justified.
On due consideration of the entire material before this Court, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the increments granted to the petitioner is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Perusal of Annexure P2 leaves no room for doubt that the degree had been earned by the petitioner on 07.07.2003 when the approval had been taken to the award such a degree to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University. It is also stipulated in the said Annexure that the degree was to be conferred upon him in ensuing university convocation which apparently took place in the year 2009 which is also a date of issuance of such a degree. It also transpires from perusal of Annexure P3 that on 31.12.2003, the necessary notification to that effect had been issued and it was merely the act of conferment of the degree which took place in the year 2009. That being the apparent situation the respondents' action of withdrawing the increments on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite degree in his credit in the year 2004 is not tenable.
CWP No. 16705 of 2010
-3-
Consequently, the petition is accepted and the impugned action of
the respondents that is Annexure P9-P10 are directed to be quashed.
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
April 20, 2011 divyanshi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State was correct in withdrawing increments granted to the petitioner based on the date the degree was conferred rather than the date it was acquired.
Whether the action of withdrawing increments was sustainable in the eyes of law.
Dr. Mukesh Kumar
State of Haryana
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
