Allowed

Dr.Miss.Vineeta Srivastava v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2022CW/6775/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a pay scale order. The High Court held that notional grant of pay scale does not cure the illegal deprivation of income. It quashed the impugned cancellation order and directed the release of actual arrears along with consequential pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.02.2006 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release actual payment of arrears along with consequential pay fixation within two months.

Dr.Miss.Vineeta Srivastava Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6775/2006

¶3

Dr. (Miss) Vineeta Srivastava, D/o Late Sh. N.K.Srivastava, Aged 36 years. R/o 35/677, Glass Factory, Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan – Through College Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, College Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Registrar, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur.

¶9

The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-10002.

¶10

Principal, Udaipur School of Social Work, Janardan Rai Nagar Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv.-cum-AAG assisted by Ms. Pratyushi Mehta Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, AGC Mr. Rishabh Nanda for Mr. Girish Joshi

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

17/ 10/2022

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner on being selected as Lecturer vide order dated 21.11.1994, came to be appointed in Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur (Deemed University) (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondentuniversity’). The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 27.07.1998, issued Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), on the recommendation of University Grants Commission (UGC), for revision of pay scale of teachers. The revision of the pay scale of teachers was subject to various

¶17

(2 of 6)

¶18

[CW-6775/2006]

¶19

provisions of the Scheme of Revision of Pay Scale, as contained in the guidelines for implementation of Career Advancement Scheme dated 27.07.1998 and the regulations to be framed by UGC in this regard. According to the guidelines dated 27.07.1998, a teacher possessing M.Phil dedgree, shall be eligible to move to the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale), after putting in 5 years of service. The petitioner acquired M.Phil degree in the year 1998. The respondents therefore, in accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, vide office order dated 30.07.2004, allowed Senior Scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.1999. The petitioner pursuant to the order dated 30.07.2004, started receiving pay in the Senior Scale. However, vide order dated 15.02.2006, the Registrar of the respondent-university cancelled the order dated 30.07.2004. Aggrieved by aforesaid action of the respondents, present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Senior Scale was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.07.2004, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and after approval of Vice Chancellor of the university, on satisfying the conditions laid down in the Career Advancement Scheme dated 27.07.1998. It was further submitted that the Senior Scale was withdrawn, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, prior to issuance of order dated 15.02.2006, having evil and civil consequences. Learned counsel drew the Court’s attention towards the additional affidavit wherein following assertion (reproduced herein below) was made, showing that relief qua the impugned order dated 15.02.2006 had been granted but

¶21

(3 of 6)

¶22

[CW-6775/2006]

¶23

the actual benefit as prayed for in the writ petition had been denied without any valid reason:-

¶24

“4. That the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the respondent university denied the benefits of Lecture (senior scale) w.e.f. 1999 and consequential benefits. Now before relieving the petitioner from the respondent university, the university has fixed the pay of the petitioner in pay scale of Associate Professor. Initially the petitioner was given the senior scale of lecture w.e.f. 5-12-99 and which was withdrawn by the order dated 1502-06. But now the petitioner has been given the benefit of senior scale of lecturer w.e.f. 1999. Thereafter the petitioner's pay has been fixed in the pay scale of Reader w.e.f. 01-01-06. Then the petitioner's pay scale has been in the pay scale of Associate Professor w.e.f. 5-12-07. Meanwhile an order was passed by which the benefit of the two increments on the ground of having Ph.D. Degree w.e.f. 1 29-04-03 was passed but this benefit was given notionally. Though as stated above, the petitioner's pay has been fixed in these pay scales but very surprisingly the petitioner has not been given actually payment of the Reader's Pay Scale we.f. 05-12-04 and actually payment of Associate Professor pay scale w.e.f. 05-12-07, The petitioner's pay has been fixed as per the 6 Pay Commission Recommendations w.e.f. 01-01-06 but that fixation was done on the basis of the payment which she was getting. As per the 6 Pay Commission Recommendations, an Associate Professor is entitled to get the pay scale of Professor after completion of 3 years Meaning thereby the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Professor w.e.f. 05-12-10. The respondent university has fixed the pay of the petitioner notionally in the pay scale of Associate Professor which proves by the pay fixation statement which shows that the petitioner was relieved from the respondent university and her pay was fixed at Rs. 52250/-. The statement of the pay fixation is produced herewith as ANNEXURE P-23.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D degree in the year 2003, however, two advance increments as per the guidelines dated 27.07.1998, were not allowed inspite of an agreement dated 08.08.2008, between the teachers’ association and Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university for removing aforesaid anomaly.

¶26

(4 of 6)

¶27

[CW-6775/2006]

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-university submitted that a lecturer in the respondent-university becomes entitled for grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) after completion of 5 years of regular service, if he/she is possessing Ph.D degree. Similarly, a lecturer becomes eligible, for Senior Scale on completion of 7 years of regular service, possessing M.Phil degree. Since the petitioner acquired M.Phil in the year 1998, she became eligible for grant of Senior Scale in the year 2001. It was vehemently submitted that CAS Scheme dated 27.06.1998 only applies to the central universities and therefore, the claim for two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D and movement to Senior Scale in terms of aforesaid scheme is not sustainable against the answering respondents. It was urged that the petitioner cannot be allowed to retain the benefits which had been erroneously extended. Learned counsel was however, not in a position to refute the averments made in Para 4 of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein specific statement has been made that Senior Scale was restored in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.12.1999, which had been withdrawn earlier vide order dated 15.02.2006 and the notional benefits in conformity with the aforesaid pay fixation had been made in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

Heard submission advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶30

There is no dispute between the parties that Senior Scale under CAS which had been cancelled vide order dated 15.02.2006 was restored by extending notional pay fixation to the petitioner. Thus, the issue regarding eligibility of the petitioner to receive Senior Scale w.e.f. 05.12.1999 no longer survives. The only issue

¶31

(5 of 6)

¶32

[CW-6775/2006]

¶33

to be adjudicated upon is whether petitioner can claim the arrears of pay for the period, Senior Scale and consequential pay fixation were denied.

¶34

This court while issuing notices upon respondents on 24.11.2006, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, was pleased to pass the following interim order:-

¶35

“By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dated 15.02.2006 whereby the Registrar, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur cancelled the order dated 30.04.2004 allowing the pay scale of Rs.10,000/-15,200/- w.e.f. 05.12.1999.

¶36

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that withdrawal of senior scale granted earlier is in violation of principles of natural justice and is in violation of guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. It is further stated that though the order was passed on 15.02.2006, but no deduction in pay of the petitioner is made prior to month of October 2006.

¶37

Admit. Issue notice.

¶38

Having considered the request for interim relief, operation and effect of the order dated 15.02.2006 passed by the Registrar, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur is stayed.”

¶39

In view of the fact that operation and effect of the order dated 15.02.2006 had been stayed by this Court, the respondents were mandated not to act upon the said order. The respondents despite interim order reduced the pay scale of the petitioner. Had the respondents acted in consonance with the interim order dated 24.11.2006, the question of making payment of the arrears to the petitioner after restoration of Senior Scale under CAS w.e.f 05.12.1999, would not have arisen. It is noticed that Senior Scale was conferred upon the petitioner on the recommendation of Screening Committee after adjudging eligibility of the petitioner

¶40

(6 of 6) [CW-6775/2006]

¶41

without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner.

¶42

It is a settled law that if an employee has been deprived of his/her income illegally by the mighty employer who kept the money without authority of law, the same would be violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶43

In view of aforesaid discussion, this court finds that the petitioner is entitled for actual payment of arrears, arising out of order dated 30.07.2004, along with arrears of consequential pay fixation.

¶44

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.02.2006, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release actual payment in favour of the petitioner against arrears along with consequential pay fixation pursuant to order dated 30.07.2004. The respondents are further directed to decide the claim, to be presented by the petitioner for two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D degree, in accordance with the agreement dated 08.08.2008, between the teachers’ association and Vice Chancellor.

¶45

The entire exercise in terms of above-mentioned directions shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of this order.

¶46

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶47

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶48

KshamaD

Dr.Miss.Vineeta Srivastava v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Miss.Vineeta Srivastava v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khetram Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sampat Singh Rathore Vs Maharana Pratap Uni. of Ag. and Tec. and Ors.

Pramod Vs State of Rajasthan

Harbansh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh Saktawat Vs State and Ors.

Sampat Singh Rathore Vs Maharana Pratap Uni.of Agri. and Tec Andors.