Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Harimohan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 1150 of 2021
Decided On : 10-05-2022
Principal - Pay Scale Dispute - [NIRD Act, Section 6(1)(a); UGC Act, Section 12(1)(f)] - The court discussed the dispute regarding the pay scale of the Principal/SIRD in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by UGC and the retirement age of the petitioner. The court considered the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of SIRD, the age of retirement of Principal and faculty members, and the essential qualifications for the post of Principal of Government Colleges. The court also highlighted the principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally as established in the case of Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1984) 1 SCC 222, and concluded that the petitioner's claim for superannuation at the age of 65 years and re-fixation of pay scale did not have a basis.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Principal in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Manipur, filed a writ petition to quash the order of retirement and to re-fix the pay scale in parity with UGC scale or State Government scale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for superannuation at the age of 65 years and re-fixation of pay scale did not have a basis, considering the Recruitment Rules, Service Rules, and the essential qualifications for the post of Principal of Government Colleges.
Issues: Dispute over the retirement age and pay scale of the Principal/SIRD in parity with UGC scale or State Government scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally, as established in the case of Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1984) 1 SCC 222, to determine the petitioner's claim for superannuation at the age of 65 years and re-fixation of pay scale.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 13.9.2018 issued by the Under Secretary (RD&PR), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to streamline/re-fix the pay of the Principal/SIRD, Manipur in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by UGC i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP 9000/- as per the recommendation of NIRD/MorD, Government of India or in parity with the Principal (Under Graduate College) i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP 10,000 + Rs.2000/- special Allowances as prescribed by the State Government.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Manipur on 21.6.1984 and he was later on appointed by promotion to the post of Principal (MPRTI) [now State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD)] of the RD & PR on regular basis. Since the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of SIRD have not been framed, the respondents has adopted the Recruitment Rules and Service Rules of NIRD, Government of India. However, by ignoring and overlooking the fact that there must be an uniformity in the pay scale of the faculty all over India and the pay scale should be equal to UGC scale and equal to the UGC post of Associate Professor as per the proceedings of National Colloquium of ETCs 2nd and 3rd June, 2016 of NIRDPR, MoRD, Government of India and also in total disregards to the Rules of the SIRD, by the impugned order dated 13.09.2018, the petitioner who is holding the post of Principal (MPRTI) was ordered for retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.2018. According to the petitioner, the pay of the Principal/SIRD is to be streamlined in parity with the scale of pay of Associate Professor as prescribed by UGC or in parity with Principal (UG College) as prescribed by the State Government, the age of superannuation in respect of the petitioner on the capacity as Principal/SIRD (MPRTI) ought to be fixed as 65 years.
3. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor (Agri) on ad-hoc basis in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duty or till the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. He was regularized as Instructor (Agri) in the scale of pay of Rs.720-30-1020-EB04501470/- per month. It is stated that the Directorate has forwarded an application submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary (RD & PR) for re-fixation of the pay scale of Principal in the pay scale of Associate Professor prescribed by UGC i.e. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP Rs.9000/- as per the recommendation of NIRD/MoRD, Government of India or a Principal (UG College) of the State Government Rs. PB-4: Rs.37400-67000+AGP Rs.10000+Rs.2000 Special Allowance prescribed by the State Government on 27.1.2017. The Deputy Secretary (RD & PR) requested the Director (RD&PR) to submit a comment along with justification for re-fixation of pay scale of Principal (MPRTI) on 4.5.2017. On 18.11.2017, the Directorate has addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary (RD & PR) protecting the pay of the Principal/SIRD.
4. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the promotion avenue of Principal/SIRD is to be from (i) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (ii) Instructor (Agri) and (iii) Instructor (Sociology) with five years regular service in their respective grade and their pay is Rs.5200-20200+GP2800 in the recruitment rule. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal (MPRTI) vide order dated 23.8.1994 in the RD & PR Department on regular basis in the scale of Rs.9300-34800+GP 4300/- on 21.4.2015. In the recruitment rule, it is mentioned that the post of Principal has to be promoted from (i) Graduate Instructor (Panchayat); (ii) Instructor (Agri) and (iii) Instructor (Sociology) with five years regular se
The principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally was central to the court's decision in rejecting the petitioner's claim for superannuation at the age of 65 years and re-fixation of pa....
Promotion rights are determined by the rules in force at the time of consideration, not by outdated rules at the time of vacancy creation.
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale for the post of Principal, DIET and the court directed the respondents to revise the pay ....
The court established that a Senior Research Officer is classified as a Teacher under the university's statutes, entitled to benefits of extended service age.
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
