Allowed

Dr.Bhagyavati, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Nov 2010WP/11923/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice C.V. Ramulu allowed a writ petition regarding a petitioner employed against an aided vacancy. The court held that despite not improving PG marks, the petitioner was entitled to count her service from the date of appointment for Career Advancement Scheme benefits, rejecting the respondent's reliance on a 2006 Act applicable only to un-aided vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to treat period from 20.08.1977 for extending Career Advancement Scheme benefits.

Dr.Bhagyavati, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11923 of 1998

¶2

Dated:20.06.2007

¶3

Between Dr.Bhagyavati

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶5

and

¶6

1. The Government of AP Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11923 of 1998

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting scales of pay of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and not granting Career Advancement Scheme benefits, counting the service from 20.08.1977 as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and count the service of the petitioner granting Career Advancement Scheme benefits from 20.08.1977 with all consequential benefits.

¶11

It appears that the petitioner was

¶12

appointed as Junior Lecturer in the 4^th respondent-College vide proceedings dated 19.8.1977 being selected by a duly constituted selection committee and joined the service on 20.08.1977 against an aided vacancy. Since the petitioner secured less than 55% of the marks in Post Graduation, he made representations to the 4^th & 2^nd respondents to waive the condition of having 55% of marks in the P.G. and to enable him to draw the scale of Rs.530-1050 and Rs.700-1600. Thereafter, the first respondent issued GOMs.No.396, Education dated 15.4.1982 by granting general exemption to those candidates who possess less than 55% marks in PG degree. The first respondent has also granted three years time for improving the percentage of marks in the PG degree, otherwise, the future increments would be stopped. In pursuance of the same, the 2^nd respondent approved the petitioner’s appointment as lecturer with effect from 20.08.1977 in the scale of Rs.530-1050

¶13

subject to his improving percentage of marks in PG degree within three years. But, the petitioner did not improve the percentage of marks. However, the petitioner obtained Ph.D in Hindi with effect from 11.3.1992. According to the petitioner, there is no necessity of further possessing more than 55% of the marks in view of obtaining Ph.D in Hindi as per GOMs.2757 dated 27.12.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to be granted regular time scale with effect from 1.1.1986 and the services rendered by her with effect from 20.08.1977 be counted for the purpose of extending the benefits under the Career Advancement scheme.

¶14

No counter is filed. However, the learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that although the petitioner was supposed to improve her qualification by obtaining 55% and more marks, she has not obtained the same. Therefore, the services rendered by her prior to obtaining the Ph.D

¶15

with effect from 11.3.92 cannot be counted for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and the question of extending the regular pay scale from 1.1.86 does not arise.

¶16

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record.

¶17

Insofar as the relief sought for grant of pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 1.1.86 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner may not be entitled for such relief in view of the fact that she did not improve 55% of marks either within 3 years or before obtaining Ph.D.

¶18

Thus, the only question that requires to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered by her in the category of Junior Lecturer with effect from 20^th October 1977 for the purpose of benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme or not.

¶19

Although the petitioner secured less than 55% of marks in the P.G.decree and could not improve the said percentage as per the exemption given in G.O.Ms.396 dated 15.4.1982,in view of the fact that she had obtained Ph.D in Hindi with effect from 11.3.1992, she was entitled for exemption of possessing 55% of marks in the PG degree as per G.O.RT No. 2757 dated 27.12.1995,. Thus, the petitioner was deemed to have been exempted from possessing 55% of the marks at least from the date of obtaining Ph.D qualification i.e., 11.3.92.

¶20

Be that as it may, there is no embargo for counting the service rendered by the petitioner in the post of Junior Lecturer with effect from 20-08-1977 in an aided vacancy, particularly, having subjected to regular selection process.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent however placed reliance on Act No.26 of 2006 and stated that the service rendered by the petitioner as a Junior Lecturer with effect from

¶22

20.08.1977 cannot be counted for the purpose of extending the benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme. But, the purport of the Act 26 of 2006 is that whenever a lecturer is appointed against an un-aided vancancy, the services rendered in the said post cannot be counted for the purpose of extending the benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme and a lecturer is entitled for such benefits only when the post is admitted to grant-in-aid. This is a case where admittedly the petitioner was originally appointed against aided vacancy. Therefore, she is entitled to count her service rendered in aided post. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the service rendered in the aided post without 55% of marks cannot be counted for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme.

¶23

For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the period from 20.08.1977 for the

¶24

purpose of extending the benefits to the petitioner under the Career Advancement Scheme and also extend the benefits accrued there under.

¶25

_________ 20-06-2007

¶26

rkk

Dr.Bhagyavati, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bhagyavati, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Ratna Cable Network Through its proprietor, Vs The Post Master, Peddapalli, H.O

Ch.Madhusudna Rao Vs The Commissioner and Diretor of Settlements

N.T.R.Nagar Phase-Ii Weaker Section Welfare Vs The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District

M/s. Sri Sai Rocks, Vs The District Collector

Gayathri Degree College, Peddapally Village, and Vs A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank

Tirupathi Raghunath Vs Tirupathi Shankar