Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that the order dated 31.12.2008 at Annexure-5 was issued for Universities and Colleges and was not applicable to MNIT and other Technical University. Referring to Para 8 of the said order, it is submitted that decision for Technical Institutions was to be taken by the Committee, which was later on taken and as a consequence thereof, an order was passed on 18.8.2009 to govern Centrally funded Technical Institution and MNITs. In the order dated 18.8.2009, benefit of increment was allowed only at the entry level and not beyond it. No benefit was kept for those who obtained qualification of Ph.D. while in service. Thus, reference of the order dated 31.12.2008 by the petitioners is misleading. They are governed only by the order dated 18.8.2009. This is more so when a clarification was further made vide order dated 9.3.2010 with a circulation to all the National Institutes of Technology, which includes MNIT. It was clarified that benefit of non-compounded increments as provided in the order dated 31.8.2008 would available to those who have done Ph.D. in Professional Courses after 1.1.2006 and while in service. The petitioners are those who did their Ph.D. prior to 1.1.2006, thus were not eligible for the benefit of three non-compounded increments pursuant to the order dated 31.12.2008. The MNIT was, accordingly, directed to regulate their affairs as per the directions of Government of India.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

The issue for grant of non-compounded increments came in picture on issuance of the order dated 31.12.2008. It was pursuant to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. The relevant Para 7(iv) of the said order is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

7. Incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil and other higher qualification:
(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 discipline and has been awarded by a University complying with the process prescribed by the UGC for enrollment, course-work and evaluation etc. The perusal of the para quoted above reveals that Teachers who complete their Ph.D. degree while in service would be entitled to three non-compounded increments, if such Ph.D. is obtained in the relevant discipline. The order aforesaid does not define who are Teachers because Universities or Colleges are having Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, which were earlier known as 'Lecturer, Reader and Professor'.

The argument of learned counsel for Government of India is that order dated 31.12.2008 is not applicable to respondent MNIT. In that regard, a reference of para 8 of the aforesaid order has been given. It is submitted that for MNIT, a separate decision was to be taken on the recommendations of the Committee followed by order dated 18.8.2009 at Annexure-6. Perusal of the order dated 18.8.2009 reveals that a decision for Centrally Funded Technical Institutions and this order does not provide benefit of non-compounded increments on obtaining qualification of Ph.D. while in service though it deals with other benefit. If the aforesaid is applied to the MNIT, then none would be entitled to the benefit of three non-compounded advance increments if obtained qualification of Ph.D. either prior to 1.1.2006 or subsequent to it. If the impugned order passed by the MNIT is looked into, then indication exists for withdrawal of benefit of three non-compounded increments for those who obtained qualification of Ph.D. prior to 1.1.2006 and not to others who obtained qualification of Ph.D. after 1.1.2006.

The question now comes regarding justification about the cut off date. It is given out that recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission is dated 1.1.2006, thus any benefit has to be from the aforesaid date only. The only justification given is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130. Therein, fixing cut off date for the benefit for the first time is held to be illegal. If ratio descidendi is applied to the present matter, then cut off date 1.1.2006 has wrongly been applied by the respondents. This is more so when to give incentive for higher education by virtue of order dated 31.12.2008 and subsequent order dated 9.3.2010 is after lapse of two years, yet incentive has been allowed in favour of those who had undertaken Ph.D. prior to 31.12.2008 though after 1.1.2006, but for them it was without knowing that they will get incentive in the shape of three non-compounded increments, if course of Ph.D. is undertaken. The position could have been different, if benefit of three non-compounded increments would have been given w.e.f. 31.12.2008 i.e., date when order in that regard was issued for the first time. In the aforesaid eventuality, the Teacher would have taken Ph.D. Course subsequent to 31.12.2008 to get benefit of three non-compounded increments, but in the present case, it has been applied since 1.1.2006. The only logic given is for implementation of Revised Pay Scale Rules from the aforesaid date, but if object to give incentive is taken note of, then it is to promote higher education for those Teachers, who are in service. The object aforesaid cannot be by providing a cut off date 1.1.2006, when order was passed on 31.12.2008, hence, action of the respondents to deny benefit of three non-compounded increments to those who have undertaken Ph.D. Course prior to 1.1.2006, is not legal and justified, rather it is hit by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. The fact further remains that original order dated 31.12.2008 does not provide a cut off date.