The main legal point established is that the grant of higher pay to a junior must be justified by an intelligible differentia, and a person with a higher qualification from the beginning cannot be put at a disadvantageous position compared to someone who acquires the qualification later.

JUDGMENT :

1. As these two appeals are against a common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.9.2022 in Writ-A No. 4194 of 2022, they are connected with each other and, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order.

2. Writ-A No. 4194 of 2022 was filed by Dr. Lallu Singh (the appellant in Special Appeal No. 666 of 2022, who is also respondent no.1 in Special Appeal No. 671 of 2022) for quashing the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 16.07.2021 of the Director, Administration & Monitoring, Chandrashekhar Azad Krishi & Prodyogik Vishwavidyalay, Kanpur (for short the University) rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner (i.e. Dr. Lallu Singh) for stepping up his pay as to make it at par with his junior. The writ petitioner also prayed for a direction upon the University Authorities to step up the pay of the petitioner and make it at par with that of his juniors with effect from the date the juniors were given higher pay and to pay the arrears with interest.

3. The petitioner claimed for a step up in pay on the ground that by virtue of clause IV (ii) (d) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) circular letter dated March 3, 1999 two advance increments were to be awarded as and when a teacher of University acquires a Ph.D. Degree in his service career. On the basis thereof, the pay of many teachers, who obtained Ph.D degree during their service period, though junior to the writ petitioner, got raised and became higher than that of the petitioner therefore, on principle of pay parity, the writ petitioner was entitled to step up in pay. The University Authorities sought to justify rejection of the claim on following grounds: that the writ petitioner had entered service with Ph.D. degree and got its benefit as was available at that time for such additional qualification; whereas, the juniors with whom the writ petitioner claimed pay parity got Ph.D. degree during their service and, therefore, by virtue of ICAR circular dated March 3, 1999 they got two advance increments w.e.f. 27.07.1998 in the scale revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996; and that, the ICAR clarificatory circular, dated April 19, 2004, prohibited a claim by a senior for step up in his pay if, by such raise provided to his junior, the pay of the junior becomes higher than that of the senior.

4. What is undisputed is that the persons junior to the writ petitioner who were working on the same post were given higher pay only because they obtained Ph. D. degree during their service, which the writ petitioner held since the time of entry in service. It is also undisputed that the increment awarded to writ petitioner’s junior was in light of ICAR circular letter dated March 3, 1999 which provided certain incentive for Ph.D./ M.Phil. The relevant clause of the Circular dated March 3, 1999 issued by ICAR is clause IV(ii)(d), which has been extracted below:

"A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires Ph.D. degree in his service career."

5. The above part of the 1999 ICAR Circular was clarified by ICAR Circular dated April 19, 2004 in terms below: -

6. The writ petitioner claimed that since the post on which he and his junior were working was same, the functions attached to the post were same, both got appointment through selection, the salary difference was not because any of them entered the cadre from a different stream, or with pay p