Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Shiv Ratan Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 17 October, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 696/2017
Reserved on: 04.10.2018
Pronounced on :
Hon'ble Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
1. Dr. Shiv Ratan Singh
Lecturer (Electronics & Communication
Engineering)
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
R/o 106, SFS Flats,
Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi -110085.
Aged around 49 years
2. Dr. Satish Kumar
Lecturer (Electronics & Communication
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh
R/o Flat no. 126, Dwarka, New Delhi -75
Aged Around 49 years.
Both the Applicants are presently posted at :-
Guru Nanak Dev Institute of Technology,
Sector -15, Rohini, Delhi. .. Applicants
(By Advocate : Sh. Sourabh Ahuja)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2
2. Principal Secretary
Department of Training & Technical Education,
GNCT of Delhi
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitam Pura, Delhi-88.
2
3. The Principal
Guru Nanak Dev Institute of Technology,
Department of Training & Technical Education,
Sector-15, Rohini,
New Delhi - 110085.
(By Advocate : Sh. H.D. Sharma)
ORDER
There are two applicants in the instant case. Both these applicants were appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Training under Govt. of NCTD. The selection was done through UPSC. The Applicant no.1 was appointed as Lecturer on 05.09.2000 whereas Applicant no.2 was appointed on 1206.1998. The basic qualification for Lecturer is B.Tech.
In follow up of AICTE Notification dated 05th March, 2010 in respect of "Incentive for Ph.D/M.Tech. and other higher qualification)"
Govt. of NCTD had also issued their notification dated 29.07.2010. This Notification dated 29.07.2010 which in turn is based upon AICTE Notification dated 05th March, 2010, has the following provision :
"Incentives for Ph.D/M.Tech. and other higher qualifications:
(i) Teachers who complete their Ph.D. degree while in service shall be entitled to three non-compounded increments if such Ph.D. is in the relevant branch/discipline and has been awarded by a university complying with the process prescribed by the UGC for enrolment, course-work and evaluation etc."
2.0. In follow up of the same, both the applicants had sought permission of the respondents to pursue Ph.D. course. This permission was granted to these applicants on 26.06.2012 and 23.02.2012 3 respectively. The said Ph.D. course was completed on 24.12.2015 by both these applicants and degree was also awarded to both of them on 27.01.2016.
As per the GNCTD notification dated 29.07.2010, both these applicants had applied for grant of three non compounded advance increments vide their representation dated 28.12.2015 and, thereafter reminder was also issued on 19.01.2017. However, there has been no response to these representations.
3.0. The applicants also brought out that in the past, such three non compoundable advance increments were granted to several other similarly placed lecturers as under :-
(i) Dr. A.K. Ahluwalia :The advance increments was granted w.e.f. 15.01.2009 vide order dated 15.03.2012.
(ii) Dr. (Ms.) Mamta R Singh : The advance increment was granted w.e..f. 25.07.2009 vide orders dated 10.10.2013.
(iii) Dr. S .Mishra : The advance increment was granted w.e.f. 15.07.2008 vide orders dated 12.09.2012.
4.0. The applicants also brought out that in reference to RTI reply which they have received on 02.05.2014, two other candidates namely Dr. Rampal and Dr. Shiv Kumar were also granted such additional increments w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
5.0. The applicants also drew attention to the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Narain Yadav v. B.S.E. Board wherein Apex Court had made following observations :- 4
"If our nascent democracy is to thrive different standards of conduct for the people and the public bodies cannot be permitted. A public body is, in our judgment, not exempt from liability to carry out its obligations arising out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to the prejudice."
6.0. Thus, the applicants plead that they are being discriminated against. Accordingly, since the request of the applicants for grant of three non compounded advance increments have not been agreed by the respondents so far, the instant OA has been preferred wherein following reliefs has been sought :
"(a) Direct the respondents to grant three non-compoundable increments (incentive increments) to the Applicants w.e.f.
24.12.2015 (Date of completion of their Ph.D) in Electronics‟ & Communication Engineering along with all consequential benefits viz. Arrears, interest @ 18% p.a. on the arrears etc. in terms of Office Order dated 29.07.2010 read with Clarification dated 11.01.2012 And
(b) Award cost in favour of the Applicants and against the respondents. And/or
(c) Pass any further order, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7.0. The respondents pleaded that the Notification dated 29.07.2010 which is the relied upon documents by the applicants, was issued after Govt. of NCTD adopted the original ACITE scheme Dt. 5.3.2010. This, ACITE Notification dated 5.3.2010 reads as under :-
"Incentives for Ph.D/M.Tech. and other higher qualifications:
(iv) Teachers who complete their Ph.D. degree while in service shall be entitled to three non-compounded increments if such Ph.D. is in the relevant branch/discipline and has been awarded by a university complying with the process prescribed by the UGC for enrolment, course-work and evaluation etc."5
This notification Dt. 5.3.2010, also has following provision :
"Applicability of the Scheme
(i) Thus Scheme shall be applicable to teachers in Technical Institutions and other equivalent cadres of Library and for Physical Education Personnel in all the AICTE approved institutions. The implementation of the revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the AICTE in this behalf."
The adoption of this notification Dt. 5.3.2010 in its entirety, by GNCTD in their notification Dt. 29.7.2010, is very clear from the starting para of GNCTD notification, which reads as under :-
"The Govt. of NCT of Delhi has considered the recommendation regarding the pay scales and other service conditions of the teachers and other eligible staff of diploma level technical institutions under the control of this department as conveyed by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) vide its notification no. F.37-3/Legal/2010 dated 05/03/2010 published in the Gazette of India vol. 69, Part III Section 4 dated March 13, 2010 and has decided vide cabinet decision no. 1669 dated 12/07/2010 to implement the revised pay scales and other service conditions for under mentioned categories of employees of Diploma level institutions as per following details."
8.0. The respondents pleaded that the original Notification dated 05.03.2010, was a new scheme which was brought to improve the qualifications of the lecturers so as to bring improvement in the level of the training of students. This being a new scheme it was felt that certain improvements will be necessary in due course for the issues that will crop up in the course of implementation of the same, and accordingly the provision "subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this as well as regulations to be framed by the AICTE in 6 this behalf.", is in important proviso. Once, GNCTD adopted AICTE scheme, this adoption is in totality and includes this proviso.
In furtherance of the same, when many issues had come to the notice, AICTE had issued a Clarification also on 04.01.2016 wherein a total of 68 items were clarified. The item 25 of the same is reproduced below along with clarification :-
Issue Clarification
Admissibility for Non- (iii) Non-
compounded advance compounded
increments/Non- advance increments
compounded increments (Three/Two/One) on
for higher qualifications acquiring
(Degree and Diploma Ph.D/M.Phil/M.Tech.
Institutions) as a incentive and other equivalent
for Ph. D/M.Tech and other qualifications, while in
higher qualifications. service wherever
applicable in AICTE
Regulations, 2010 shall
be granted in PB-3 (Rs.
15600-39100) only.
The advance
increments for those
who acquired
Ph.D/M.Phl/M. Tech.
And other equivalent
qualifications, while in
service are not
allowed in the PB-4
(Rs. 37400-67000).
It was thus clarified therein above, that the three non compounded advance increments are admissible if they are earned up to scale of PB- III only (Rs. 15600-39100) and these advance increments were not applicable if earned in the scale PB-IV (Rs. 37400-67000). 7
The two applicants in the instant case, are presently working in PB- IV when they had completed their Ph.D. course on 27.01.2016. On this date the Notification dated 04.01.2016 has already come into force and since Govt. of NCTD had originally adopted the AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010, this adoption was alongwith the proviso "subject to" as reproduced in para 7 above and, accordingly, clarification issued on 04.01.2016 also becomes inherently applicable on the Notification issued by Govt. of NCTD on 29.07.2010. Thus, the applicants‟ case that they still be granted three non-compoundable advance increments, cannot be accepted.
9. The respondents also drew attention to the observations made by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of S.N. Chandrashekar And Another vs. State of Karnataka and others wherein the word "subject to" has been interpreted. The observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court is reproduced below :-
Para 29 :" The words "subject to" used in Section 14 are of some significance. The said words must be given full effect to. The meaning of the said words had been noticed in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. in the following terms :
(SCC p.38, paras 92-93) "92. Furthermore, the expression „subject to‟ must be given effect to.
"93. In Black‟s Law Dictionary, 5thEdn., at p. 1278, the expression „subject to‟ has been defined as under :
„Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corpn."8
10. The respondents further brought that the three candidates to whom three non-compoundable advance increments were granted earlier while they were in scale PB-IV, the same have since been withdrawn and letter to this effect has been issued on 20th September, 2018 for recovery of the same. The details are as follows :-
(i) Dr. A K Ahluwalia who was granted such increments on 15.01.2009,
(ii) Dr.Vibhakar Srimali who was granted such increment w.e.f. 26.08.2009,
(iii) Dr. K K Prasad who was granted such increment from 30.11.2011.
11. The respondents further brought that in respect of some other candidates, the increments were actually granted while all of them were in the scale PB-III. Further, when these candidates were promoted to the scale PB-IV, they were fixed at the minimum of scale PB-IV on 02.08.2017, and thus these increments got subsumed in the pay fixation process. The details are as under :-
"(i) Sh. Shailesh K Trivedi who was granted increments on 17.7.2013;
(ii) Dr.Mamta R Singh who was granted increments on 31.07.2009 9
(iii) Dr. S K Dubey who was granted increments on 13.04.2009 and Sh. Rajpal who was granted increments on 15.03.2012.
12.0. The respondents pleaded that the Notification issued by Govt. of NCTD dated 29.07.2010 but it is after adoption of AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010 and as such all conditions including the proviso "Subject to" and clarification Dt. 04.01.2016 are also automatically applicable.
In view of forgoing, the plea of the applicant for grant of three compoundable advance increments is not acceptable. 13.0. Matter has been heard at length. The AICTE scheme dated 05.03.2010 was a new scheme and it was to improve the quality of teachers so that they can impart better quality of education and training to their students. This scheme had a proviso wherein the various stipulation were subject to future clarification/Notifications by AICTE. These Notifications were issued on 04.01.2016, after various issued and problems in its implementation were brought out to the notice of AICTE.
The adoption of AICTE Notification dated 05.03.2010, by Govt. of NCTD on 29.07.2010, has to be taken in totality and not in isolation. Accordingly, the clarification issued on 04.01.2016 are fully applicable on the Govt. of NCTD Notification dated 29.07.2010. 14.0. The plea of the applicant that they are facing discrimination with respect to certain other candidates, is not based 10 upon the facts. In respect of certain candidates who were granted three advance compoundable increments, which was not in conformity to the AICTE Notification dated 04.01.2016, the said increments have since been ordered to be recovered vide respondents dated 20th September, 2018. As such, there is no discrimination.
15.0. It is the view of the Tribunal that no injustice has been done to the two applicants and they are not entitled to the three non compoundable advance increments since they had already been promoted to the scale PB-IV when it was claimed. In the event, the instant OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(Pradeep Kumar) Member (A) sarita