Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana, vs J.Sangameswar, on 29 April, 2021
Author: A.Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, Shameem Akther
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.25637 of 2016
ORDER :(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with REV. MA. No. 3332/14 in O. A. No. 5039/2014 dated 14.10.2015 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'APAT') at Hyderabad and to quash and set aside the same as illegal and unconstitutional.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that one Sri. J. Sangameshwar, Lecturer in Commerce, Government Degree College-Siddipet, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as 1st respondent) was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in Commerce on 19/11/1984, and promoted as Lecturer during the year 2001. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Education, dated:
16/07/2001 extended UGC RPS-1996 to all the Lecturers who were appointed prior to 01/01/1986 as Junior Lecturers/Physical Directors/Librarians in Junior Colleges and promoted after 01/01/1986, exempting from possession of NET/SLET which were mandatory qualification for extension of UGC RPS-1996. Therefore, the Lecturers, who fell within the ambit of the above exemptions and who opted to come over to UGC Scales were allowed UGC Scales of 1996 in terms of fitment formula issued in G.O.Ms.No.127, Education Department, dated 30.10.2000. In terms of above G.O, the Lecturers drawing State Pay Scales, 1999 2 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 alone are eligible to exercise option for UGC Scales of 1996, i.e., the Lecturers drawing State Pay Scales, 1999 are at liberty either to enter into UGC Scales, 1996 or State Pay Scales, 2005. In pursuance of Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.61, Education, dated: 16/07/2001, and option exercised, the pay of 1st respondent was fixed in UGC Scales 1996, by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education (hereinafter referred to as 2nd petitioner) vide Proceedings Rc.No: 928/UGC.PF.1/2004, dated: 27/10/2004, but he continued in the pay scale of State PRC 1999 and also exercised his option to State PRC 2005 in terms of G.O.Ms.No:213 Finance & Planning (FWPCI) Dept. Dated: 27/08/2005, and further in the post of Lecturer in the Scale of Rs.11755-26300, Govt. Degree College, Siddipet, Medak District, exercised the option to come under the R.P.S.2010 with effect from 01/07/2008 as per G.O.Ms.No:93/Fin (PC-II) Department dated: 03/04/2010, and accordingly the pay fixation was done vide Proceedings No:E2/214/10, dated 9/8/2010 of the Principal Govt. Degree College, Siddipet, Medak District, ignoring the orders of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the fact that he exercised option for 2005/2010 State Pay Scales itself abundantly speaks that he is not interested to draw UGC Scales of 1996 and wilfully entered in subsequent State Pay Revisions. Subsequently, 1st respondent filed O.A.No.5039/2014 to declare the Government Memo.No.6393/CE.I-1/2011-3 dated: 01/03/2014 rejecting implementation of fixation of UGC pay scales as illegal, and also in his representation dated 24-07-2014 requested the 2nd petitioner to revalidate the orders allowing UGC Pay Scales of 1996 as per 3 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 the option already exercised in the past on par with one Sri. V. Satyanarayana, Retired Lecturer in Chemistry in the same college.
The case of 1st respondent is different from that of Sri. V. Satyanarayana, who opted for UGC Pay scales of 1996, and accordingly the department vide CCE's Proceedings in Rc.No:
561/UGC-PF-1/2004, dated: 28/08/2004 has issued orders fixing his pay at Rs.13500 + 564=20/-FPI on 11/09/2001 in the Revised UGC Scale1996 in the Pay of Rs.8000-13500/-. That Sri V Satyanarayana continued in the pay scale of State PRC 1999 and exercised his option to State PRC 2005 ignoring the orders issued in CCE's Procg. Rc. No: 561/UGC-PF-1/2004 and when the matter was immediately referred to Government for clarification, the government vide memo no. 1173/CE. I-1/2007-2, dated 02.01.2008 stated that option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered and subsequently Sri V Satyanarayana was directed to honour the proceedings and was instructed to remit the excess amounts already drawn in State PRC of 2005 and retired from service on 31.01.2007. The 1st respondent has opted for UGC Scales and was allowed vide proceedings dated 27.10.2004, but subsequently, he opted and exercised for fixation in the State Pay Scales of 2005/2010 ignoring the above CCE's proceedings and without notice. The Government in Memo No.1173/CE.I.1/2007-2 dated 02.01.2008 has informed categorically that the option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under any circumstances, the 1st respondent ignored the said G.Os and 2nd petitioner's proceedings and opted for second option and got pay fixed in RPS of 2005 and 2010 and 4 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 is drawing State scales of pay till to date and that his case is different of Sri.V.Satyanarayana. Accordingly the request of 1st respondent has been examined and rejected through speaking orders vide CCE's Proceedings Rc.No:179/UGC-PF/14, dated:30.10.2014. That the APAT in Order dated 21.11.2014 in
0.A.No.5039/2014, 5040/2014 and 5041 of 2014, ordered that the applicants therein including the 1st respondent herein are not entitled for the relief sought for in the above OAs. Aggrieved by the order, 1st respondent preferred review before the APAT and the same was allowed. Hence, this writ petition.
3. This Court, by order dated 30.11.2016 granted an order of interim stay in WPMP No.31692 of 2016 in W.P.No.25637 of 2016.
4. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2017 (WVMP No.218/2017) seeking to vacate the interim order dated 30.11.2016 along with counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition stating that as per the G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 16.07.2001, he opted for UGC pay scales 1996. Following the same, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education issued proceedings dated 02.10.2004 fixing his pay scale under UGC Scales 1996, but the same has not been implemented till date. The 1st respondent made several representations seeking extension of UGC pay scales, 1996, but in vain. Even though the Commissioner of Collegiate Education fixed the pay scales of the 1st respondent under UGC pay scales of 1996, he was continued in the State pay scales of 199, and subsequent revised pay scales of 2005 and 2010 to till date. The 1st respondent opted to State Pay Scales 2005 & 2010 only 5 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 because of his continuing in the State Pay Scales due to non implementation of CCE proceedings of granting UGC Scales. Mere opting for State Pay Scales, 2005 and 2010 does not mean that the 1st respondent was interested in State Pay Scales only. Though he opted for revised state pay scales, he could not avail the benefit of Automatic Advancement Scheme in Revised State Pay Scales 2005 and 2010. Till date, the 1st respondent has not applied for Special Grade Promotion Scale in 2005 and Special Promotion Scale in 2010 scales under Automatic Advancement Scheme, which clearly indicate that the 1st respondent was interested in UGC Scales only. Sri V.Satyanarayana, P.Prabhakar and C.Raghunath Reddy, who also opted for UGC Pay Scales 1996 and got fixed by proceedings of CCE and continued in State Pay Scales 1999 and opted for Revised State Pay Scales 2005, as that of the 1st respondent. They have also requested the CCE and Government not to implement UGC Pay Scales and allow them to continue in State Pay Scales, the government issued Memo No.1173/CE.I.1/2007-2, dated 02.01.2008 stating that 'Option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under any circumstances' and revalidated their earlier CCE proceedings of granting UGC Scales, but the same was not made applicable in the case of 1st respondent, even though the 1st respondent never asked for non implementation of the CCE proceedings of granting UGC Scales. The representation made by the Association of Lecturers seeking extension of UGC Pay Scales, who have already opted for UGC Scales and the CCE already fixed the pay scales of respective candidates under UGC Pay scales, was rejected 6 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 arbitrarily by the Government vide Memo dated 01.03.2014 on the ground that they have opted for subsequent State Pay Scales of 2005 and 2010 and the option once exercised by lecturers is final and cannot be altered. In the case of Sri V.Satyanarayana, who retired from service was given UGC Scales by proceedings of the 2nd petitioner dated 09.06.2008 in Rc.No.316/UGC/P.F.3/2007 stating that option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under any circumstances by referring to Government Memo No.1173/CE.I-1/2007, dated 02.01.2008, who was also continued in State Pay Scales till retirement. Therefore, the rejection orders of the Government dated 01.03.2014 is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.5039/2014 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by common order dated 21.11.2014 in O.A.Nos.5039, 5040 & 5041/2014, as the applicants therein are not entitled for the relief sought for in the O.As. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed Rev.MA No.3332 of 2014 in O.A.No.5039/2014 before the Tribunal, which passed the order on 14.10.2015 in O.A.No.5039/2014 and Rev.MA No.3333 of 2014 in O.A.No.5040/2014 as follows:
"In view of my finding on point No.(i), the Review Miscellaneous Applications are allowed and Government Memo No.6393/CE.1- 1/2011-3 dated 1.03.2014 rejecting implementation of the UGC Pay Scales is held bad in law and is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of UGC Pay Scales to the applications in these Review Miscellaneous Applications on par with Sri V.Satyanarayana, Sri P.Prabhakar, Sri C.Raghunatha Reddy and other Retired Lecturers."
The Memo issued by the Government dated 01.03.2014 is contrary to the Memo dated 02.01.2008 and that the Government 7 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 cannot change its stand from time to time. The 1st respondent made representation to the 2nd petitioner on 10.10.2012 for revalidation of earlier proceedings of granting UGC scales. Since he failed to receive revalidation orders from the 2nd petitioner till 24.07.2014, he again made request on 24.07.2014 requesting the said authority to extend UGC Pay scales to the 1st respondent on par with Sri V.Satyanarayana. The Government also issued Memo No.5996/CE-1-2/2011 dated 04.06.2013 revalidating the earlier proceedings of granting UGC Scales in respect of Sri P.Prabhakar and Sri C.Raghunath Redy, Retired Lecturers of Government Girraj College, Nizamabad. The 1st respondent is entitled for implementation of orders of 2nd petitioner dated 27.10.2004 fixing UGC Scales.
5. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri Rajasheker Thallapally, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition submits that the 1st respondent having initially opted for UGC scales 1996, and subsequently opted for State Pay Scales 1999, 2005 and 2010 and he is precluded from again opting for UGC Pay Scales 1996. The Government vide Memo No.6393/CE.I- 1/2011-3 dated 01.03.2014 has rightly rejected the implementation of fixation of UGC pay scales to the applicant and other similarly situated persons. Though the APAT dismissed the OA filed by the applicant on 21.11.2014 in O.A.No.5039 of 2014 on the grounds of delay and latches, but has erroneously allowed 8 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 the review application filed by the applicant in Rev.M.A.No.3332 of 2014 on 14.10.2015 basing on the similar orders passed in favour of other similarly situated persons i.e., V.Satyanarayana, Sri P.Prabhakar and Sri C.Raghunatha Reddy, whose cases are different from that of the applicant.
7. On the other hand, Sri Rajasheker Thallapally, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that since the 1st respondent initially opted for UGC Pay Scales of 1996, the Government has not considered the same and rejected his request for UGC Pay Scales on the ground that he had drawn State Pay Scales in 1999, 2005 and 2010. He also submits that the Government under similar circumstances, has considered the case of Sri V.Satyanarayana, Lecturer and granted UGC Pay scales as per his earlier option, as in the case of the 1st respondent. The APAT, after taking into consideration the Government Memo No.5996/CE-I-1/2011, dated 04.06.2013, wherein the Government has revalidated the UGC Pay Scales in respect of P.Prabhakar, Lecturer in Chemistry (Retired) and C.Raghunatha Reddy, Lecturer in Zoology(Retired), who have also drawn the State Pay Scales 2005 and 2010 as that of the 1st respondent, by ignoring their earlier options for UGC Scales, granted relief to the 1st respondent, as such, no exception can be taken.
8. In view of above rival contentions, the point for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the Tribunal is right in reviewing the order dated 21.11.2014 in O.A.No.5039/2014 in respect of 1st respondent?"
9 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016
9.Point No.(i):
In this case, it is to be seen that the 1st respondent was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in Commerce on 19.11.1984 and promoted as Lecturer in the year 2001. In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.61, Education, dated 16.07.2001 issued by the Government, he opted UGC Pay Scales 1996. The 2nd petitioner issued proceedings in Rc.No.928/UGC.PF.1/2004, dated 27.10.2004 allowing him to draw the UGC Pay Scales 1996. Even though the 1st respondent opted for UGC Pay Scales 1996, he was not granted the same, as such, he was allowed to draw State Pay Scales 1999, 2005 and 2010. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the 1st respondent opted for 2005 and 2010 pay scales as per the G.O.(P) No.213, Finance (P.C.I) Department, dated 27.08.2005, which deals with the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.52, Finance (PC.I) Department, dated 25.02.2010, which deals with the recommendations of 9th Pay Revision Commission, in respect of State Government Employees, respectively, as he was not granted UGC scales inspite of proceedings of the 2nd petitioner. In fact, in the said G.Os, it is categorically mentioned that even if a Government employee, who is entitled to exercise option in the Revised Pay Scales within a period of six months from the date of publication of the Rules and if he fails to do so, it shall be deemed that he has opted to the Revised Pay Scales of that particular period. Clause 3(a) of Rule 5 of both the G.Os reads to the same effect, which reads as follows:
10 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 "If a Government employee does not exercise his option in writing within the time specified in Sub Rule (2), he shall be deemed to have opted to the Revised Pay Scales, 2005 from 1.7.2003."
"If a Government employee does not exercise his option in writing within the time specified in Sub Rule (2), he shall be deemed to have opted to the Revised Pay Scales, 2010 from 1.7.2008."
10. It is pertinent to note here that when the General Secretary of Government College Gazetted Teachers Association, A.P, made a representation dated 17.01.2007 requesting them to allow the college teachers to continue in the State Scales by ignoring their option exercised for UGC Scales of Pay, the Government vide Memo No.1173/CE.1.1/2007-2, dated 02.201.2008 rejected the said request categorically stating that the option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under any circumstances and hence the request was rejected by the Government. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo No.6393/CE.I-1/2011-3, dated 01.03.2014 also rejected the request of the General Secretary, Government College Gazetted Teachers' Association for revalidation of fixation of State Pay Scales,1999 to UGC Pay Scales, 1996. However, in respect of persons placed in similar situation, the Government has considered the case of Sri P.Prabhakar and C.Raghunatha Reddy, Lecturers (retired), who initially opted for UGC Pay Scales 1996 and got fixed by proceedings of 2nd petitioner, but continued in State Pay Scales, 1999 and opted for Revised State Pay Scales 2005 as that of 1st respondent, and revalidated their pay scales. In the said G.O, it is observed as follows:
"5. The Government vide Memo No.5996/CE.I.1/2011, dated 04.06.2013 have permitted Commissioner of Collegiate Education to 11 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 revalidate the orders and consequently two Lecturers viz., Sri Raghunatha Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Rao, were allowed UGC Scales, 1996 by converting from State Pay Scales, 1999. These two lecturers remained in State Pay Scales of 199 only and retired from service during 2005. Hence, these two cases are entirely different from the case of others who are requesting for revalidation now. The Lecturers have already entered into State Pay Scales, 2005 and 2010 and can't claim parity with those two Lecturers who remained in State Pay Scales of 1999."
When once the Government has considered the cases of Sri C.Raghunatha Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Rao, who have initially opted for UGC Pay Scales, 1996 and subsequently, opted State Pay Scales, 2005, and revalidated and granted UGC Pay Scales, 1996, it is not known as to why the Government has not extended the said benefit to the 1st respondent.
11. It is not only categorically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition but also argued by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I that the case of the 1st respondent is different with that of Sri V.Satyanarayana, Sri Raghunatha Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Rao, but it is not stated as to how their cases are different with that of the 1st respondent herein. There is no material placed on record to that effect. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent has approached them after long lapse of time, as they already considered cases of similarly situated persons, as observed supra. When once the Government vide Memo No.1173/CE.I.1/2007-2, dated 02.01.2008 has clarified to the effect that option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under any circumstances, the case of the 1st respondent is also falling in the category with that of Sri V.Satyanarayana, Sri Raghunatha Reddy and Sri Prabhakar Rao, as the 1st respondent has also exercised 12 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 his option for UGC Pay Scales 1996 on par with aforesaid persons, the 1st respondent is also entitled for the said benefit on par with similarly situated persons. Therefore, 1st respondent cannot be deprived of his entitlement with regard to UGC Pay Scales, 1996 on par with aforesaid persons.
In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference by exercising the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India. The point is answered accordingly.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2017 (WVMP No.218 of 2017) is allowed and interim order granted on 30.11.2016 in WPMP No.31692 of 2016, is hereby vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stands dismissed.
____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J ___________________________ Dr.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date:29.04.2021.
kvs 13 ARR, J & Dr. SA, J WP_25637_2016 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION No.25637 of 2016 Date: .04.2021.
kvs