Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
K. Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
University of Madras, Rep. through the Registrar, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 5196 of 2018
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Writ Petition - Pay Anomalies Committee - Madras University Act,1923, Section 19G - The court discussed the recommendations of the Pay Anomalies Committee, the decisions of the Syndicate, and the role of the Technical Committee in implementing the approved decisions. Key legal provisions such as the power of the Syndicate to vary and modify its decisions, the concept of fairness in employee entitlement to promotion, and the violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fairplay were highlighted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings of the respondent University dated 23.09.2015, alleging invalidity and seeking implementation of the Pay Anomalies Committee's recommendations. The petitioner had been stagnant in the same post without promotion or monetary benefits, despite the approval of recommendations by the Syndicate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decisions of the Syndicate and the subsequent actions of the University violated the Principles of Natural Justice and Fairplay. It held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits approved by the Syndicate and directed the University to implement the recommendations of the Pay Anomalies Committee.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the University's proceedings, the petitioner's entitlement to promotion and monetary benefits, and the actions of the Syndicate and Technical Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the concept of fairness in employee entitlement to promotion, the violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fairplay, and the binding nature of the Syndicate's decisions in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the University was directed to implement the recommendations of the Pay Anomalies Committee and confer all consequent benefits on the petitioner within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent/University made in item No.2(i) of the Syndicate Resolution/Approval made in Ref.NIL, dated 11.02.2011 and the consequential proceedings made pursuant to the syndicate Resolution/approval dated 11.02.20111 along with 1st respondent proceedings made in No.Mu/f1(c)/Estt/WP 20386/2015/1836 dated 23.09.2012 and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently directing the 1st respondent to implement the Pay Anomalies Committee recommendations pursuant to proceedings dated 15.05.2010 as approved by the Syndicate in the Resolution dated 21.05.2010 to the petitioner providing with all service and monetary benefits. (Prayer amended vide order dated 17.08.2022 made in W.M.P.No.18576/2022 in W.P.No.5196/2018))
1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondent University dated 23.09.2015, as one being invalid, illegal and null &void, along with Item-2(i) of the Syndicate dated 11.02.2011 and to consequently direct the respondents to give effect to the Pay Anomalies Committee''s recommendations to the petitioner, providing necessary service and monetary benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Senior Technical Assistant by way of direct recruitment in the Department of Organic Chemistry on 23.05.1988. The said post was re-designated as Assistant Technical Officer, on 30.06.1995. Though the petitioner held the said post of Assistant Technical Officer she was not conferred any monetary benefits. The petitioner was granted Selection Grade of pay on completion of 10 years and Special Grade of pay on completion of 20 years. It is case of the petitioner that the post, ‘Assistant Technical Officer’ does not carry any avenue of promotion. According to the petitioner one another post identical to petitioner’s post namely ‘Assistant Section Officer’ carrying the same scale of pay at the entry level, provided for promotion opportunities and the person would reach upto the highest promotional cadre of ‘Senior Deputy Registrar’ in about a span of 3 decades and a little more. However as an Assistant Technical Officer, the petitioner is stagnant in the very same post without any promotional avenue. All aggrieved Assistant Technical Officers made a joint representation dated 06.11.2009 to the respondent University citing their grievances and seeking pay revision. The Pay Anomalies Committee’s recommendations were placed before Syndicate of the respondent University and the University has also approved the said recommendations vide proceedings dated 15.05.2010. Despite the same, no action was taken to implement the decision of the Syndicate which necessitated yet another joint representation to be given on 29.07.2010 and an individual representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2010. Some of the aggrieved persons filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.23285 and 23286/2010 and in and by order dated 06.10.2010, this Court issued directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s individual representation dated 23.09.2010 and take appropriate action within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the respondent formed a Technical Committee. Alleging disobedience order dated 06.10.2010, Contempt Petitions came to be filed in Contempt Petition Nos.1488 & 1489/2011. According to the petitioner, the respondent University has been delaying the implementation of the Pay Anomalies Committee recommendations which was also approved by the Syndicate. Unfortunately, the Technical Committee sought to give different recommendations, behind the back of the petitioner. The Technical Committee’s recommendations were placed before the Syndicate on 11.02.2011. However the Syndicate decided to refer the issue to the Pay Cell of the Government and sought for clarification. Acc
The court emphasized the importance of fairness in employee entitlement to promotion and the violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fairplay in reaching its decision.
The Pay Verification Cell lacks authority to unilaterally modify pay scales set by statutory committees, affirming the jurisdiction of University committees in pay fixation.
The judgment established the principle that once employees are in one cadre, the distinction between direct recruits and promotees disappears, and no discrimination can be made thereafter in fixing t....
Employees of educational institutions are entitled to pay scales as per government regulations, regardless of management claims of financial incapacity or improper appointment procedures.
The main legal point established is the requirement for equal pay for equal work, as well as the need for statutory clarity and justification in determining pay scales for employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
