Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs Dr. Leni V on 29 July, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs Dr. Leni V on 29 July, 2025

The respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.27269 of 2015 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 05.12.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1 st respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside Ext.P5 order dated 16.04.2015 issued by the 1 st appellant cancelling Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014 of the said appellant and directed the appellants to restore the pay and consequential benefits as in Ext.P4.

2. 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 with effect from 06.06.2000 and then as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 06.06.2005. While in service, the 1st 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 WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:55708 dated 03.09.2013 issued clarifying Ext.P1 by the Government, by Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014 the 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 However, the said benefits were withdrawn when the 1st respondent was placed as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. The 1st respondent, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 24.10.2014 to the 1st appellant requesting to restore the benefits. Thereupon, the 1st appellant 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 date. But, immediately after Ext.P4 communication, the 1st appellant issued Ext.P5 order holding that the 1st 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 appellant, therefore, withdrew the advance increment sanctioned to the 1st 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 WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:55708 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 date. Challenging Ext.P5, the 1st respondent approached this Court with the writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 1st appellant, 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 non- compound 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 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.

WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:55708

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 3 rd 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 3 rd 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 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:

WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:55708 "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 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 WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 8 2025:KER:55708 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."

5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent University.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that as per Clause (iv)(1) of Ext.P2 Government Order dated 03.09.2013, the 1st respondent is entitled for two non- compounded advance increments in the revised scale of pay at the pre-revised rate of increment from the date of acquiring Ph.D. till 31.08.2008 and at the revised rate of increment with effect from 01.09.2008. He was granted two advance increments while in the pay scale of Rs.15600 - 39100 + AGP 8,000/- as an Assistant Professor. When he was promoted as Associate Professor, his pay band was changed to Rs.37,400- 67,000/-. Since there was a huge difference in the salary scale, when the 1st respondent was placed as an Associate Professor, he was entitled to basic pay band amount of an Associate Professor. But the 1st respondent was mistakenly granted two increments in his new pay band also. This mistake was corrected by Ext.P5 order dated 16.04.2016. The learned Senior Government Pleader would further submit that as WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 9 2025:KER:55708 per Clause 9.10 of Schedule for Clause 6.8 of 2010 UGC Regulation, notwithstanding anything contained in any clause in that Regulation, those who have already availed the benefit of advance increment for possessing Ph.D./M.Phil at the entry level under the earlier scheme or Regulations shall not be entitled to the benefit of advance increment under those Regulations. So the 1st respondent cannot claim advance increment when he was placed as an Associate Professor, as it will amount to double payment of the advance increment.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the 1st respondent is entitled to carry forward the already granted increments when he was promoted from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Associate Professor. The learned Counsel relied on Ext.P7 judgment of this Court dated 09.03.2012 in W.P.(C)No.25962 of 2008, which was confirmed in the appeal by the Division Bench as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 28.08.2014 in Writ Appeal No.1888 of 2012 and also another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.02.2018 in Writ Appeal No.1653 of 2017, in support of his argument. The learned counsel further submitted that there will be a junior-senior anomaly, if the increments are withdrawn, after WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 10 2025:KER:55708 getting promotion to the post of Associate Professor by the 1 st respondent, since a junior who acquires a Ph.D/M.Phil subsequently, will get a higher salary.

8. To the argument raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that there will be a junior-senior anomaly if two advance increments are not granted to the 1st respondent in his new pay scale, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the said contention was not taken by the 1st respondent in the writ petition. As far as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that those judgments were passed without taking into account the UGC Regulation, and so also, they do not speak about how fixation was granted to the petitioners therein.

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 WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 11 2025:KER:55708 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 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:

WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 12 2025:KER:55708 "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 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 not satisfied that Regulation 9.10. is of any WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 13 2025:KER:55708 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 6th 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 6th 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 6th 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 1st respondent was moved from the post of Assistant Professor to the post 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 WA NO. 1689 OF 2018 14 2025:KER:55708 increments to the 1st 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 1st 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.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court