Appellants denied advance increments as the M.Tech qualification became a basic requirement post-implementation of new regulations; advancements in qualification do not entitle retroactive benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.7028 of 2019 are before this Court with this writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 proceedings dated 22.01.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent Director, LBS Centre for Science and Technology; to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to continue payment of advance increment already granted to the appellants with usual allowance thereof, so long as Exts.P1 to P3 orders are in force; and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refund the amount already recovered from the appellants.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants were appointed as Lecturers in the Electronics and Communication Department of LBS Institute for Women, Poojappura, Trivandrum, on 16.01.2008 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. Their pay was subsequently revised to Rs.15600-39100/-. The minimum eligibility for appointment to the post of Lecturer at that time was B.Tech degree with first class. The post of Lecturer was subsequently redesignated as Assistant Professor. While in service, the appellants acquired M.Tech degree. By virtue of Ext.P1 AICTE Regulations dated 22.01.2010, which was implemented by the Government of Kerala by Ext.P2 order dated 07.12.2010, one advance increment for those employees possessing M.Tech/M.Phil degree was granted. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 clarification order dated 16.06.2017, it was clarified by the Government that the advance increment for M.Tech degree is limited to the employees working in the pay band-3, i.e., pay scale of Rs.15600-39100. According to the appellants, by misconstruing the orders in Exts.P1 to P3, the audit wing of the Government raised Ext.P4 objection, presumably taking redesignation of the post of Lecturers as Assistant Professors as an upgradation of the post of Lecturer. Without properly considering the correct position, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P5 proceedings dated 22.01.2019 for refixation of pay of the appellants by deleting the advance increment legally granted to them, and for recovery of about Rs.1/- Lakh from each of the appellants. Pursuant to Ext.P5 proceedings, recovery of Rs.14,000/- each from appellants 1 and 2 was effected from the salary of February 2019 and Rs. 6000/- each from appellants 3 and 4. Therefore, the appellants filed W.P.(C)No.7028 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the necessary reliefs.

3. The learned Single Judge considered W.P.(C)No.7028 of 2019 along with some other writ petitions filed by persons similarly placed as that of the appellants herein, and by the common judgment dated 11.09.2024, the learned Single Judge allowed those writ petitions, except that of the claim of the appellants. Paragraphs 12 to 14 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

“12. The issue arises only subsequent to the 2010 Regulations. The respondents have placed reliance on the notification dated 04.01.2016. A reference to the said notification would show that two paragraphs that are made applicable as against the petitioners, are paragraphs 5 and 6. As regards paragraph 5, the same would get attracted only in a situation where the concerned persons were working with ‘lower qualification’ when the qualification required was a higher one. The said paragraph may not apply as against the petitioners herein for the simple reason that as on the date of joining the service of the 2^nd respondent itself, the pet