Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
HARSHAD D. SANTOKI S/O DEVJIBHAI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 6921 of 2019, Civil Application No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 02-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: RUSTOM MARSHALL, ARPIT A. KAPADIA.
For the Respondent: KRUTIK PARIKH.
Brief adverse remarks over a short period cannot disqualify a petitioner from receiving AGP benefits.
Headnote:
AGP - Academic Grade Pay - [AICTE Norms, Circular dated 07.02.1995] - The court discussed the assessment criteria for AGP, the relevance of confidential reports, and the limitations of court's jurisdiction in reassessing adverse remarks. The judgment highlighted the importance of service history and the inadequacy of brief adverse remarks to disqualify the petitioner from receiving AGP benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought declaration to quash the denial of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) and consequential AGP based on adverse remarks in confidential reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the brief adverse remarks did not justify the denial of AGP benefits and directed the respondents to award the AGP as per the notification dated 23.01.2019.
Issues: Denial of AGP benefits based on adverse remarks, jurisdiction of court to reassess confidential reports.
Ratio Decidendi: Brief adverse remarks over a short period cannot disqualify a petitioner from receiving AGP benefits.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to award AGP benefits as per the notification dated 23.01.2019.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this court for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not giving the benefit of the Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 8000/- with effect from 12.07.2010 and consequential AGP of Rs. 9000/- with effect from 12.07.2013 which has been extended to other Assistant Professors be quashed and set aside.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Industrial Engineering Department of L.E. College, Morbi vide notification dated 09.07.1999. His period of probation was over on 12.07.2001 and thereafter he was appointed on a long term basis by order dated 11.02.2002. By a communication dated 17.09.2007, on completion of six years of service on the same post, the petitioner was extended the benefit of Senior Scale of Rs. 10000-15200. He was re-designated as Assistant Professor in accordance with the norms of AICTE with effect from 28.03.2011. On 07.08.2018, applications were invited from eligible professors for movement from AGP Rs. 7000 to Rs. 8000. The petitioner on 08.08.2018 made an application requesting that he is entitled to the upward movement of AGP from Rs. 7000 to 8000 in PB-III with effect from 12.07.2010. Thereafter he also moved an application on the same date for the benefit of upward movement of AGP from Rs. 8000 to 9000 with effect from 12.07.2013. By a communication dated 12.09.2018, a list of beneficiaries of AGP of Rs. 8000 was published. The petitioner’s name figured at Sr. No. 43. The benefit of AGP of Rs. 8000 was granted with effect from 01.04.2015 rather than on completion of five years from 12.07.2005. The remark against the column mentioned that since he had adverse remarks for the year 2009-10, he was denied benefit from the year 2010.
3. Mr. Rustom Marshall, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the denial of AGP of Rs. 8000 from 12.07.2010 and consequential movement upwards to AGP of Rs. 9000 with effect from 12.07.2013 based on the adverse remarks is bad. Pointing out the adverse remarks which have been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, Mr. Marshall would submit that if the adverse remarks are perused, three things appear to have weighed with the respondents in denying the benefit of AGP of Rs. 8000 and Rs. 9000 respectively. Against the column ‘Initiative, Resourcefulness and Willingness to assume responsibilities’ the petitioner has been shown to be weak. Against the column ‘Capacity to take quick and sound decisions’ the remark is that he lacks in taking quick decisions and needs improvement. With regard to the details of disciplinary action, the remark indicates that the petitioner was on unauthorized leave for a day. Assailing these assessments, Mr. Marshall would in support of his submissions rely on a communication addressed by the petitioner after attending the election duties on 29.04.2019 wherein there is a categorical remark of the Principal that the petitioner was absent on 02.05.2019, on telephonic information he had informed the authorities on 01.05.2009 that he was unwell. This, according to Mr. Marshall, learned Senior Counsel would totally un-justify the disciplinary action that is made a remark in the assessment reports for denial of AGP.
3.1 Mr. Marshall would submit that though representation was made for expunging the adverse remarks in the year 2010, it was rejected on 31.08.2010, that itself would not disentitle the petitioner to claim benefit of AGP of Rs. 8000 and 9000 respectively based on the submission that the remarks were not adverse so as to deny benefits of upward movement in the pay-scale. Several documents have been annexed to the petition to indicate the work efficiency of the petitioner inasmuch as he was handed over additional charge at some stages or also was made in-charge of certain examinations which was to be conducted by Saurashtra University.
4. Mr. Krutik Parikh, l
