Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandigarh Administration vs Dr. Anurag Sankhian And Others on 1 October, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012
Date of Decision: October 01, 2012
Chandigarh Administration
...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Anurag Sankhian and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Chandigarh Administration has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 17.2.2012 (Annexure P4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby O.A. No.842-CH of 2011 filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to grant two advance increments to him with effect from 1.3.2008, i.e., the date on which he acquired the doctorate degree, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till the payment of arrears. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.4.2012 (Annexure P6), whereby the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, respondent No.1 joined the petitioner-college as Lecturer in Geography in the year 2003. At the time of his appointment, he was having CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012 -2- qualification of M.A. Geography, M.Ed, M.Phil along with SLET in Geography. He being an M.Phil, was granted two advance increments. In the year 2008, respondent No.1 acquired Ph.D. degree. Thereafter he moved an application for grant of two advance increments in view of Clause 6.4.0 of U.G.C. Notification dated 24.12.1998. When the petitioner rejected the claim of respondent No.1, he filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal for grant of two advance increments in view of the aforesaid Clause. Vide impugned order, the said O.A. was allowed.
It was held by the Tribunal that the contention of the petitioner that the case of respondent No.1 falls under Clause 6.2.0 was not tenable as it will result into discrimination for want of any rationality. His case falls under Clause 6.4.0 which provides that a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. Degree in her/his service career. It has been found as a fact that similar benefit has been given to similarly situated employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the instant case Clause 6.4.0 is not applicable. According to him, at the time of his initial appointment, respondent No.1 was possessing M.Phil degree and two advance increments in that regard were granted to him as per Clause 6.1.0, and as per Clause 6.2.0 he was entitled to one more increment provided he acquired the P.hd. degree within two years of the recruitment. He further argued that since respondent No.1 acquired his Ph.D. degree in the year 2008, i.e., after more than five years of his initial appointment, he was not entitled for the said benefit.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012 -3- through the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Regulation 6.0.0 of UGC Notification dated 24.12.1998 provides for following incentives for Ph.D/M.Phil:-
"6.1.0 Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil degrees, respectively, at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. Candidates with D. Litt/D.Sc should be given benefit on par with Ph.D and M.Litt on par with M.Phil.
6.2.0 One increment will be admissible to those teachers with M.Phil who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment. 6.3.0 A Lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader. 6.4.0 A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career."
A perusal of the aforesaid Regulations clearly indicates that if the candidate at the time of initial recruitment is possessing Ph.D degree he/she would be awarded four advance increments, and in case of M.Phil, he/she will be awarded two advance increments. Respondent No.1 at the time of his initial appointment was possessing the degree of M.Phil. Accordingly he was awarded two advance increments under Clause 6.1.0. He acquired the Ph.D degree later on, though not within two years of recruitment. Clause 6.4.0 clearly stipulates that `a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career'. In our opinion, the case of respondent No.1 for grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree falls under Clause 6.4.0. Since at the time of recruitment four advance increments could have CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012 -4- been awarded to a candidate possessing Ph.D degree, but if he is not possessing the said degree and acquires the same later on, he will be entitled to two increments because minimum educational qualification for appointment of Lecturer was possessing a M.Phil degree. Respondent No.1 had been awarded two advance increments for possessing M.Phil degree at the time of his initial appointment. Therefore, on acquiring the Ph.D degree, he is entitled for two more increments as per Clause 6.4.0. In our opinion, Clause 6.4.0 is to be read harmoniously with Clause 6.1.0 otherwise a person who has acquired the Ph.D degree in the later time of his career will not be entitled for any advance increments. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Clause 6.2.0, respondent No.1 is not entitled for any advance increment on his acquiring the Ph.D degree which had been acquired by him after five years of his recruitment, will lead to an anomalous situation which will ultimately result into discrimination with respondent No.1 as on his acquiring the Ph.D degree, he will not be entitled for any advance increment, which was not the intention of the framers of the Scheme. From Clause 6.1.0 it is apparent that a person possessing Ph.D degree will be admissible to four advance increments while a person possessing M.Phil degree will be awarded two advance increments. Since respondent No.1 had already been granted two advance increments as he was possessing M.Phil degree at the time of his initial appointment, he is entitled for two more increments on his acquiring the Ph.D degree. Undisputedly the petitioner has already granted the similar benefit to certain other similarly situated Lecturers, which has not been withdrawn as yet. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CWP No.19587-CAT of 2012 -5- Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly denied the benefit of two advance increments to respondent No.1, which he was entitled to under Clause 6.4.0 from the date when he acquired the Ph.D degree.
No merits. Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
October 01, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE