The court upheld eligibility for certain faculty members under the AICTE scheme for pay revision while emphasizing that all requests must be treated fairly and in compliance with legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

In W.P.(C) No. 37813 of 2018, the petitioners are Engineering faculty members in various colleges under the 2nd respondent, Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD). Petitioners 1 to 9 were serving as Assistant Professors, and petitioners 10 to 14 were serving as Lecturers (Selection Grade). They seek placement in the higher pay band of Rs.37,400–67,000 and re-designation as Associate Professors under the AICTE Scheme, based on Ext.P1 G.O.(P) No.389/10/H. Edn dated 07.12.2010, which implemented the AICTE pay revision in the State w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The said benefit was extended to IHRD faculty through Ext.P2 proceedings dated 18.03.2011, on the same terms and conditions, except for arrears.

1.1. The petitioners were granted Selection Grade on various dates between 2010 and 2011, and claim eligibility for re-designation in terms of Clauses 6.1.10 and 6.1.11 of Ext.P1, having completed more than three years in the grade of Lecturers (Selection Grade). The petitioners have completed more than four years of service after the eligible date of re- designation. Selection Grade was sanctioned to the 1st petitioner on 18.06.2010 vide Ext. P3 order dated 4.09.2010, and similarly, other petitioners have also been granted Selection Grade as evidenced from Ext. P4 to P16. They assert that similarly placed faculty, one Prakas N., Lecturer (Selection Grade), was re-designated as Associate Professor and granted the higher pay band with effect from 22.10.2011, but the petitioners were excluded despite identical service profiles.

1.2. The petitioners filed representations before the 2nd respondent requesting to sanction the higher pay band of Rs. 37400- 67000/- and to re-designate as ‘Associate Professor’, and to take necessary steps to rectify the anomalies in pay fixation and re-fix their pay retrospectively based on Ext. P1 order as evident from Ext. P18 to Ext. P31. The petitioners further approached this Court by filing WPC No. 12542/2018, which was disposed of by Ext. P32 judgment dated 10.04.2018 directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P18 to P31 within two months after hearing the petitioners. Pursuant to this, a hearing was conducted by the 2nd respondent and Ext. P33 order dated 10.08.2018 was issued rejecting the claim of the petitioners raised in Ext. P18 to P31 citing audit objections and financial constraints. It was stated in Ext.P33 order that in the audit objection of the Accountant General (AG) during 2011-12, during the test check of service books, some irregularities were pointed out in the fixation of pay of the faculties in the Engineering Colleges. Accordingly, a centralised cell was constituted at the IHRD headquarters on 10.01.2014 to verify the fixation. The cell has made some adverse observations on the pay fixation statement of 137 faculties. A sub-committee was also constituted for resolving the issues about the fixation of pay of 137 faculty members under AICTE/UGC. The report of the sub-committee has been forwarded to the government. The petitioners are also included among the 137 faculty members. The issues are not settled, and the rectification can be done only on receipt of directions from the Government.

1.3 The petitioners thereby contend that Ext.P33 is arbitrary, especially when no audit objections exist against some petitioners, and when eligibility is undisputed. They submit that denial of benefits, despite fulfilling all requirements under the AICTE Scheme, results in unfair treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated colleagues and juniors. The petitioners seek quashing of Ext.P33 order rejecting their request for a higher pay band and re-designation,