Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs Dr. Leni V on 8 October, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs Dr. Leni V on 8 October, 2025

This review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A. No.1689 of 2018, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.

2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the review petitioners/appellants, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent University of Kerala.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that at the time of hearing the writ appeal, Appendix I of Ext.P1 G.O. (P) No.58/2010 /H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010 was not before this Court, since the 1st respondent did not produce it along with Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The review petitioners have now produced Appendix I of Ext.P1 as Annexure A1 along with this review petition. The calculation of salary in case of promotion from one academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in accordance with Clause 10 of Annexure A1. But 3 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 this Court had no opportunity to go through Annexure A1 at the time of passing the judgment. Similarly, at the time of the argument of the appeal, the review petitioners relied on Regulation 9.10 of the UGC Regulations 2010. But in fact, it was Regulation 10.4 which ought to have been pointed out to this Court. If Clause 10 of Annexure A1 and Regulation 10.4 of UGC Regulations 2010 were pointed out to this Court, the result of the writ appeal would have been different.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that this Court passed the judgment based on previous judgments of this Court. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.

5. In order to understand the dispute that was involved in the writ petition and subsequently in the writ appeal, which ultimately resulted in the filing of this review petition, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts borne out from the pleadings. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as Lecturer in the college of the 2nd respondent, which is an aided college, with effect from 06.06.1994. He was placed as Lecturer Senior Scale 4 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 with effect from 06.06.2000 and then as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 06.06.2005. While in service, the 1 st respondent acquired Ph.D. on 17.03.2007. The post of Selection Grade Lecturer was meanwhile redesignated as Assistant Professor. 1 st respondent was given placement as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. Based on Ext.P1 Order dated 27.03.2010 issued in implementation of 6th UGC Scheme and Ext.P2 Order dated 03.09.2013 issued clarifying Ext.P1 by the Government, by Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014 the 1st petitioner/1st appellant sanctioned two advance increments to the 1st respondent and with effect from 17.03.2007 his pay was raised to Rs.24,070/- with AGP Rs.8,000/- from Rs.23,230/- with AGP Rs.8,000/-. However, the said benefits were withdrawn when the 1 st respondent was placed as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. The 1 st respondent, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 24.10.2014 to the 1st petitioner requesting to restore the benefits. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner issued Ext.P4 letter informing him that his pay was revised to Rs.38,800/- + AGP Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.09.2008, with the next increment on the normal 5 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 date. But, immediately after Ext.P4 communication, the 1 st petitioner issued Ext.P5 order holding that the 1 st respondent is not eligible for revised advance increment with effect from 01.09.2008 in view of the clarification received from the Directorate of Collegiate Education. The 1st petitioner, therefore, withdrew the advance increment sanctioned to the 1 st respondent in the pay band of Rs.37,400/- - Rs.67,000/- + AGP Rs.9,000/-, saying that the 1st respondent is eligible only for two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. with effect from 17.03.2007 and for a pay of Rs.24,070/- + AGP Rs.8,000/- in the pay band of Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100/- + AGP Rs.8,000/- with next increment on normal rate. Challenging Ext.P5, the 1st respondent approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.27269 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Call for the entire records leading up to Ext.P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the respondent No.3 and 4 to refix the petitioner's pay on retaining the advance increments granted to him on account of their acquisition of Ph.D. in the 6 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 revised scale when he was placed into the post of Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008 and pay all monetary benefits on account of such fixation with arrears within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court".

6. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 1st petitioner, a statement dated 25.01.2016 was filed by the Senior Superintendent of Collegiate Education, opposing the relief sought and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that statement read thus:

"3. As per Para IV(1) of G.O(MS) No.597/2013/H.Edn. dated 03.09.2013 produced as Exhibit P2 in the above Writ Petition stipulates that a teacher who was acquired Ph.D, while in service between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 shall be eligible for 2 noncompound advance increments in the revised scale of pay at the pre-revised rate of increment from the date of their acquiring Ph.D. till 31.08.2008, and at the revised rate of increment w.e.f 01.09.2008. The said position was clarified by the Director of Collegiate Education by his letter No. UGC Cell.3/1154/2015/Coll.Edn dated 06.03.2013 wherein it was clarified that, after the granting of 2 advance increment in the revised scale at the pre- revised rate w.e.f 01.01.2006 for teachers who had acquired Ph.D., a further 2 advance increment w.e.f 01.09.2008 might result in financial augmentation if the same teacher is appointed as Associate Professor on a higher scale before 7 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 01.09.2008. Copy of the letter issued by the Director of Collegiate Education dated 06.03.2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(a) for easy reference.

4. It is submitted that the retention of advance increment in the revised rate w.e.f 01.09.2008 cannot be allowed as the petitioner was placed as Associate Professor w.e.f 06.06.2008. Further petitioner has also submitted his willingness by way of an undertaking that he is ready to refund the excess payment due to incorrect fixation of pay, which is likely to be detected in future. Photocopy of the undertaking submitted by the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b) for easy reference.

5. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P5 was issued in accordance with the relevant orders issued by the UGC orders and also in accordance with the order issued by the Government and the Director of Collegiate Education. The 3rd respondent is not in any way responsible for any kind of disparity happened to the petitioner, while implementing the career advancement scheme/incentive. Further as already stated above the 3rd respondent has issued Exhibit P5 in accordance with UGC pay revision orders as well as in the light of Exhibit R3(a) order of the Director of Collegiate Education and in the light of the undertaking submitted by the petitioner."

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned Judgment. In the Judgment, the learned Single 8 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 Judge considered the question of denial of two advance increments to the 1st respondent after his placement from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Associate Professor. By relying on the previous judgments on the point, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment reads thus:

"4. The question regarding fixation of pay and denial of advance increment on placement as Associate Professor/Selection Grade Lecturer, has already been considered by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment dated 09.03.2012 in W.P.(C)No.25962 of 2012, and was affirmed in Ext.P8 judgment. I have also considered the very same issue in the judgment in WP(c)No.31777 of 2015, where the petitioner had acquired Ph.D. before placement as selection grade Lecturer and it was found that the denial of benefit of advance increment when she moved to Selection grade cannot be accepted as it would result in an Associate Professor, who is junior to her but who got Ph.D. subsequent to her, would be granted non compounded advance increment at revised rate on account of which she will have to draw lesser pay than the junior. In that case the respondents were directed to refix her pay on her placement as Associate Professor, as the very purpose and intent of the grant of incentive will be defeated in case the same is withdrawn. The principles laid down in Ext.P7 judgment as well as the Judgment in W.P.(c)No.31777 of 2015 and the judgment dt. 13.10.2017 in W.P.(c)No.23409 of 2016 would 9 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 also be applicable in the present case. In the judgment in WP.(C).No.23409 of 16, Ph.D was acquired by the petitioner therein on 10.10.2006 and he was re-designated as Associate Professor w.e.f. 15.8.2008. Though the advance increments were denied to the petitioner saying that the Ph.D. awarded to him on 10.10.2006 was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed as per 2009 Regulations, it was held that the case of the petitioner was governed by the provisions contained in clause 10.4 of Ext.P1 order seeing that the denial of the benefit on the ground of earlier acquisition of Ph.D. would be discriminatory. It was also held therein that the denial of non compounded increments to the petitioner on par with those who acquired Ph.D. subsequent to 01.09.2008 is illegal and directions were issued to the respondents to sanction the non compounded increments in tune with clause 10.4 of Ext.P1 order. In this case, the petitioner was already granted the benefit in Ext.P4 But it was withdrawn by Ext P5, unlawfully."

7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the materials of record, allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P5 order dated 16.04.2015 issued by the 1st petitioner cancelling Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014 of the said petitioner and directed the petitioners to restore the pay and consequential benefits as in 10 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 Ext.P4.

8. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners filed W.A.No.1689 of 2018 before this Court. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, this Court dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment dated 29.07.2025. Paragraphs 9 to 12 and the last paragraph of the judgment read thus:

"9. In W.P.(C) No.25962 of 2008, the issue before a learned single Judge of this Court is withdrawal of two advance increments granted to the writ petitioner therein on the basis of the Government Order dated 21.12.1999 for acquiring Ph.D. while working as Lecturer, when she moved to Selection Grade/Reader. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 09.03.2012, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the two advance increments granted to the petitioner therein consequent on the acquisition of Ph.D. cannot be withdrawn when she was moved to Selection Grade. While declining the contention of the petitioner that she is entitled to two more advance increments when moved to Selection Grade, the learned Single Judge stated that she is entitled to retain two advance increments already granted to her. Against Ext.P7, though the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education and others, including the State, filed appeal as W.A.No.1888 of 11 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 2012, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 28.08.2014, a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the findings in Ext.P7.

10. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that while passing Exts.P7 and P8 judgments, the UGC Regulation was not taken into account, a similar situation as that of the instant case arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2017. In that case also, though the learned Senior Government Pleader placed reliance on Regulation 9.10 of UGC Regulations 2010, the Division Bench held that the same is intended to apply only to the grant of increments stipulated by Regulation 9.1, which provides for the grant of five non-compounded advance increments at the entry level of recruitment as Assistant Professor to person, who possess Ph.D. degree. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of that judgment read thus:

"9. We have considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously. We notice that, advance increments were granted to the first respondent on acquiring her Ph.D qualification as per the provisions of Ext.P1 Government Order. In addition to the said increments, she became entitled to two more advance increments when she became a Selection Grade Lecturer. Those increments were granted as per Clauses 6.18 and 6.19 of Ext.P1. This Court has in Ext.P3 judgment found that she was entitled to receive four increments. The said judgment to which the appellants were also parties has 12 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 become final. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the action of the appellants in declining to pay the said increments upon implementation of the 6th UGC Scheme is proper or not.

10. The learned Single Judge has found that, the pay of the first respondent was revised. It was necessary that, her increments were also revised. The learned Government Pleader places reliance on Regulation 9.10 of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations' for short) to point out that there is a bar against grant of advance increments under the said Regulations, to persons 'who have already availed the benefits of advance increments' for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil at the entry level under the earlier Schemes/Regulations.

However, we notice that, the said bar can have no application to the case of the first respondent. The same is intended to apply only to the grant of increments stipulated by Regulation 9.1 which provides for the grant of five non-compounded advance increments at the entry level of recruitment as Assistant Professor to persons who possess Ph.D Degree. Since the first respondent is not a person who has been granted advance increments under the said Regulation, we are 13 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 not satisfied that Regulation 9.10. is of any help in advancing the case of the appellants. We do not find any provision in the UGC Regulations justifying the action of the appellants in denying to the first respondent the benefit of the advance increments that she had been receiving, on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order as well as Ext. P3 judgment of this Court.

11. As held by the learned Single Judge, upon revision of her pay in implementation of the 6 th UGC Scheme, it is not merely her pay that undergoes revision, but also her increments. Unless her increments are also revised in the manner stipulated under the 6 th UGC Scheme, a situation would arise where a junior teacher who acquires Ph.D after the relevant date, would draw more pay than persons like the first respondent for the only reason that Ph.D. was acquired on a later date. Even persons who are already in service who acquire the Degree of Ph.D. after the relevant date would also become entitled to the benefit of increments calculated on the basis of the method stipulated by the 6 th UGC Scheme. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted." [Underline supplied]

11. In the instant case, as already noted above, the 1 st respondent was granted two advance increments by virtue of Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014. However it was cancelled by Ext.P5 order dated 16.04.2015. When the 1 st respondent was moved from the post of Assistant Professor to the post 14 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 of Associate Professor, his salary was fixed at the entry scale of Rs.37400 + AGP 9,000/-, and by adding two advance increments to that amount it reached to Rs.38800 + AGP 9,000/- from 37,400. Therefore, it cannot be said that the granting of two advance increments to the 1 st respondent after his moving to the post of Associate Professor would amount to granting four advance increments. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, the non-granting of two advance increments to the 1st respondent after his moving to the post of Associate Professor would create junior-senior anomaly in the case of pay, since a junior who subsequently obtains the qualification of Ph.D./M.Phil will get more salary.

12. While analysing the facts of this case, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2017 referred to above, it is clear that the matter is covered by the said judgment. On re-appreciation of the materials on record and on considering the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to take a different view than that arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed".

9. The perusal of the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal and the materials on record, we notice that the 1st respondent produced Ext.P1 document in the writ petition, without annexing Appendix I of that document, which 15 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 is now produced as Annexure A1 by the review petitioners. Hence, this Court had no opportunity to peruse Appendix I in Ext.P1 at the time of passing the appeal judgment. Similarly, the learned Senior Government Pleader had relied on Regulation 9.10 in the UGC Regulations 2010, viz., UGC Regulations On Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education (2010), at the time of arguing the writ appeal. Regulation 10.4 was not pointed out at that time, and hence this Court relied on Regulation 9.10 alone while passing the judgment.

10. It is relevant to note Clause 10 of Annexure A1 for a better understanding of the Government Order as to the fixation of pay, when a person moves from one academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure by promotion, which reads as under:

"10. Fixation of pay on placement/promotion on or after 1.1.2006: In case of placement/promotion from one academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure, the fixation will be done as follows.

RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 One increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the existing academic grade pay will be computed and rounded off to the next multiple of 10. This will be added to the existing pay in the pay band. The academic grade pay corresponding to the promotion post will thereafter be granted in addition to this pay in the pay band. In cases where promotion involves change in the pay band also the same methodology will be followed. However, if the pay in the pay band after adding the increment is less than the minimum of the higher pay band to which promotion is taking place, the pay in the pay band will be stepped to such minimum. In view of the considerable raise in effective pay between the two pay bands, there shall be no additional increment on movement from the pay band 3 to pay band 4".

11. Ext.P1 was issued by the Government in terms of the UGC Regulations 2010. Regulation 10.4 of the UGC Regulations reads thus:

"10.4. The number of additional increment(s) on placemen at each higher stage of AGP shall be as per the existing Schemes/Regulations of increment on promotion from lower pay scale to higher pay scale; however, in view of the considerable raise in effective pay between the two pay bands, there shall be no additional increment on movement from the pay band of Rs.15,600 - Rs.39,100 to the pay band of Rs.37,400 - Rs.67,000".

RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738

12. The pay of the 1st respondent at the time of his placement as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008 was Rs.24580/- + AGP 8,000/-. As per Clause 10 of Annexure A1, one increment is equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band and the existing academic grade pay, and it should be rounded to next multiple of 100. 3% of Rs.32580/- ie, Rs.24580 + Rs.8000 will come to Rs.977/-. So when calculating the pay as stated in Clause 10 of Annexure A1, the pay of the 1 st respondent will be Rs.24580/- + AGP 8000 + Rs.977/-, which will come to Rs.25,557/-. The pay of the 1st respondent was fixed at Rs.24,580/- by adding two advance increments while in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 + AGP 8000 as an Assistant Professor.

Therefore, the pay @ Rs.24580 + AGP 8000 included two advance increments already added. The pay band of the Associate Professor, while the 1st respondent was promoted as Associate Professor was Rs.37,400 - 67,000. Even applying the formula, since the pay band of Associate Professor is much higher than that of the Assistant Professor, the 1 st respondent was granted a minimum higher pay band of Associate Professor, that is 18 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 Rs.37,400/- + AGP 9000. As stated in Regulation 10.4 of UGC Regulations 2010, further additional increments cannot be granted to the 1st respondent while moving from pay band 3 to pay band 4 in view of considerable raise in effective pay between the two pay bands.

13. While passing the judgment in the writ appeal, these materials, now produced as Annexure A1 and Regulation 10.4 of UGC Regulations 2010, were not before this Court. In the pleadings, the 1st respondent relied on Ext.P1 Government Order dated 27.03.2010. But as stated above, the 1st respondent did not produce Appendix I of Ext.P1 in the writ petition, which is now produced by the petitioners as Annexure A1. The non-production of Appendix I along with Ext.P1, which is an inseparable part of that document, by the 1st respondent can only be said as suppression of a material fact. The judgment in the writ appeal was happened to be passed in favour of the 1 st respondent only for the reason of non-production of Appendix I of Ext.P1, which ought to have been produced by the 1 st respondent.

14. In the judgment dated 29.07.2025 in the writ appeal, 19 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 this Court referred Ext.P7 judgment dated 09.03.2012 in W.P.(C)No.25962 of 2012, Ext.P8 judgment dated 28.08.2014 in W.A.No.1888 of 2012, and the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A. No.1653 of 2017. But while going through Exts P7 and P8 judgments, we notice that the Single Bench of this Court, as well as the Division Bench did not consider Annexure A1 or Regulation 10.4 of the UGC regulations 2010, while passing those judgments.

Similarly, in W.A.No.1653 of 2017, Regulation 9.10 of the UGC regulations 2010 was referred to by the Division Bench of this Court, and not Regulation 10.4, which we have extracted in the preceding paragraph. In such circumstances, Exts.P7 and P8 judgments as well as the judgment in W.A.No.1653 of 2017 are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No.1689 of 2018 is to be reviewed and recalled, as it was happened to be passed without noting the relevant Regulation and the Government Order governing the field. The review petitioners/appellants have made out sufficient ground to allow 20 RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738 the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment therein.

In the result, the review petition is allowed, and the judgment dated 29.07.2025 in W.A.No.1689 of 2018 is reviewed and recalled. The writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No. 27269 of 2015, and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                               MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                   21
RP No.1163 of 2025                                2025:KER:73738



                       APPENDIX OF RP 1163/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1            TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX -I OF EXHIBIT P1
Annexure A2            TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 21/02/2018 IN
                       WA 1653/2017
Annexure A3            TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F-15.4/2012(PS) PART
                       5 FILED DATED 11.11.2021 FROM EDUCATION
                       OFFICER,   UNIVERSITY    GRANT   COMMISSION,

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE UGC IN WP(C) 13174/2024

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court