The court ruled that UGC guidelines for pay revision were effective from September 1990, entitling the petitioner to the revised pay scale from that date.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision contained in letter dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure-18), by which the respondent-IIT(ISM), Dhanbad has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pay revision in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- with effect from September, 1990 in view of UGC guidelines. Upon quashment of the said order, the petitioner has prayed for the arrears of salary as well as other consequential benefit etc. from the date of issuance of UGC guidelines with effect from September, 1990. Further prayer has been made to allow him the benefit of 1st ACP with effect from 29.09.2005 instead of 23.08.1998 and 2nd MACP with effect from 29.09.2013 instead of 23.08.2008, as also 3rd MACP from due date.

The Facts

3. The facts as demarcated in the writ petition are that an advertisement was published by the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad on 22.09.1987 inviting applications for appointment on various posts including the post of Computer Operator. The eligibility qualification for the post of Computer Operator was that a candidate must have the degree of Bachelor in Science with training in Computer Operation. There were two pay scales prescribed for the post of Computer Operators in the pay scale of 1640-2900 (Sr. Grade) and Rs. 1400-2300 (Jr. Grade). The petitioner having the degree of B.Sc and diploma in Computer Programming applied for such appointment and finally he was appointed as Computer Operator in the Jr. Grade scale of Rs. 1400-2300 vide appointment letter dated 23.08.1988. Meanwhile, the pay scale of Senior Technical Assistants (STA)/Senior Scientific Assistants (SSA) has been enhanced by the respondent-ISM to Rs. 2000-3500/- with effect from 01.02.1988. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner was also revised along with others in the Senior Grade pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- with effect from 1.9.1989. It is the main case of the petitioner that in the month of September, 1990, the UGC directed the Universities regarding the revised pay scale & staffing pattern and for this purpose, the educational qualification and experience required for the purpose of recruitment has been enhanced and as per this, the qualification of Computer Operators was enhanced to be B.Sc. with DCA. When the representation of the petitioner was not considered for enhanced pay scale, he approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1965 of 2008. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not hold the required qualifications as per UGC guidelines and recommendation of UGC has not been adopted by the respondent-ISM. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner though filed letters patent appeal, being L.P.A. No. 290 of 2012, but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner as a Pay Anomaly Committee was constituted for redressal of his grievance. The Pay Anomaly Committee, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 22.11.2013 on the ground that since the petitioner applied for the post of Computer Operator in the Jr. Grade scale, he was not entitled for grant of Sr. Grade scale. Again the petitioner represented before the competent authority of the respondent-ISM ventilating his grievances for years together and finally an Expert Committee was constituted for establishing the equivalence degree of the petitioner and vide order dated 29.01.2020, the Committee took a decision that the petitioner was entitled for revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- with effect from the date when the respondent-ISM adopted the UGC guidelines from 29.09.1993, which was published in the month of September, 1990 and effective from 10.01.1991. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired on 31.10.2019. The grievance of the petitioner for extending the revised pay scale with effect from 10.01.1991 has not been redressed till date, though he is frequently making representation before the respondents, on one hand and on the other hand, the respondent-ISM has adopted pick and choose polic