The government has the authority to fix a cut-off date for extending service benefits, and such a decision is well within the administrative powers of the government.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter No.27306/au/2002-5, dated 13.02.2003 sent by the first respondent and quash the same and thereby directing the respondents to sanction the two incentive increments notionally to all eligible Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors, as on 01.01.1996 or eligible date for having acquired Ph.D. degree and to grant the monetary benefit with effect from 27.07.1998 to all the eligible beneficiaries, retired on superannuation or voluntarily and to settle the consequential arrears of salary, pension and retiral benefits.)

1. The petitioner is an Association of employees who are/were working in the second respondent university/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. This Writ Petition has been filed for and on behalf of 38 persons mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, who all possess the qualification of a Ph.D. degree and who are all retired from the services before 24.12.1998.

2. The grievance of the petitioner association is that by G.O.Ms.No.270, dated 08.10.2001, incentives for the acquisition of Ph.D. degree was granted in the form of four increments, if they hold Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment and one increment if they acquire within three years of recruitment and two advance increments in case of Assistant Professors. The said Government order mentions that all the incentives granted will be effective on 24.12.1998. After the Government passed G.O.Ms.270, clarifications were sought on several issues including the grant of these advances in respect of whether the teachers who retired from services prior to the date of 27.02.1998 are eligible, and by the letter dated 13.02.2003, it was clarified that they will not be eligible.

3. Subsequently, the Government had ordered to grant UGC pay scale to all of the teachers working in the second respondent's university with effect from 01.01.1996. Therefore, the petitioner's association made a representation dated 23.12.2008 that on similar basis the benefit of grant of incentive increment for acquisition of Ph.D. degree may also be granted with effect from 01.01.1996. The said representation was considered and however, negatived by the order dated 13.11.2009, stating that the grant of advance increment is by G.O.Ms.No.270, dated 08.10.2001, which had categorically fixed the cut-off date to be effective from 24.12.1998.

4. The present Writ Petition is filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 13.02.2003 and to grant the advance increments from the dates of which the members of the petitioner's association become eligible. The Writ Petition is resisted by filing of separate counter affidavits by all the respondents and it is their stand that when the G.O, itself is very clear that it will be effective only from 24.12.1998, it cannot be granted to the persons retired from services before such dates. The Government has categorically stated that ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) also clarified that the carrier advance scheme itself is with effect from 27.08.1998, therefore the members of the petitioner association having retired prior to coming into force the carrier advance scheme as well as the date of grant of advance increment, are not entitled for the same.

5. Heard, Mr. A. R. Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. E. Renganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the teachers have put in their valuable time in pursuing the research and were duly awarded Ph.D. degree. Their services as such was utilized by the University and when the increment is granted, the 38 persons mentioned in the affidavit alone holding Ph.D. degree were denied the same by fixing a cut-off date in an artificial manner as such the member