Point of Law: Grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary, but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so, seniors cannot invoke equality doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.5529 of 2018. The appellants were respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner was a teacher in the Kerala Agricultural University (the University). The matter relates to the claim made by the petitioner for stepping up of his pay in tune with the pay of one Dr.B.Balakirshnan, allegedly a teacher junior to him, with effect from 01.01.1986. The premise on which the aforesaid claim was made by the petitioner is that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petition along with an identical writ petition took the view that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench in Kerala Agricultural University v. Elizabeth K. Syriac, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1376 and consequently, allowed the writ petition and directed the University to step up the pay of the petitioner on par with the pay of his so called junior and disburse him the consequential monetary benefits. The officials of the University who are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the University as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed in the University as Junior Assistant Professor on 07.10.1977. While continuing so, he was appointed as Assistant Professor with effect from 20.04.1981. On completing ten years of service in the University, in terms of the pay revision order issued by the State Government viz, G.O.(P) No.515/85/Fin. dated 16.09.1985, the petitioner was assigned non-cadre promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 07.10.1987. While so, on 25.06.1990, the State Government adopted and implemented the 1986 Scheme of the University Grants Commission (the UGC Scheme) for the teachers of the University. While implementing the UGC Scheme, the University did not protect the non-cadre promotion given to the petitioner and similarly placed teachers in the post of Associate Professor. Nevertheless, with effect from 09.01.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in terms of the UGC Scheme in the scale of pay Rs.3,700 -5,700.

5. Dr.B.Balakrishnan was appointed in the University like the petitioner as Junior Assistant Professor on 12.12.1975. He was, however, appointed as Assistant Professor only on 02.11.1982, as there was some delay on his part in acquiring the necessary qualifications for the said appointment. As in the case of the petitioner, Dr.B.Balakrishnan was also assigned non-cadre promotion to the post of Associate Professor in terms of the pay revision order of the State Government viz, G.O.(P) No.515/85/Fin. dated 16.9.1985 on completion of 10 years’ service in the University. There were two other teachers also in the University like Dr.B.Balakrishnan who entered service as Junior Assistant Professor prior to the entry of the petitioner as Junior Assistant Professor, but appointed as Assistant Professor only after the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor. They are Dr.V.K.Raju and Dr.R.Pushpakumari. As in the case of Dr.B.Balakrishnan, the aforesaid teachers were also assigned non-cadre promotion to the post of Associate Professor prior to the conferment of non-cadre promotion to the petitioner to the said post on completion of ten years.

6. The teachers of the University including the petitioner maintained the stand that they are entitled to the non-cadre promotion given to them to the post of Associate Professor in the UGC scale of Rs.3,700 -5,700 with effect from the respective dates of grant of non-cadre promotion to them. Since the University did not accept the said stand of the teachers, they took