Prior service in equivalent grade must be recognized for promotion benefits despite differences in pay scale.

JUDGMENT

[W.P.(C) Nos.24359 of 2018, 36794 of 2018, 40221 of 2018, 40250 of 2018, 40774 of 2018, 41101 of 2018, 293 of 2019, 344 of 2019, 4365 of 2019, 6406 of 2019, 7579 of 2019, 7744 of 2019, 9192 of 2019 & 10308 of 2019]

These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners, who have been appointed as Assistant Professors in the 1^st respondent University, seeking the following benefits;

i) the reckoning of their prior service in various institutions for the purpose of promotion/grade/career advancement, etc.

ii) the grant of the period availed as leave without allowance for the service benefits.

iii) The declaration of probation without insisting for the mandatory one-year service.

The petitioners raised the afore claims before the University and the University, pursuant to the orders issued, had rejected the claims, and that is why the captioned writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners.

2. For ease of reference, the facts and averments contained in W.P.(C) No.24359 of 2018 are referred to.

3. The petitioner in this writ petition, prior to his appointment in the University, states that he was employed as an Agricultural Officer from 30.12.1989 till 15.06.1994. From 17.06.1994, he states that he was appointed as the Technical Officer in the Indian Institute of Spices Research under the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500. It is while working as above, that the petitioner sought for appointment in the University and was appointed in the 1^st respondent with effect from 18.11.2000 in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500. An appropriate application was filed by the petitioner, seeking the three benefits noticed above. The petitioner has also sought to rely on the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 10.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No.9390 of 2012 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P1 Government Order in support of the contention regarding the second issue noticed above. It is while considering the afore that the impugned order at Ext.P8 dated 15.05.2018 has been issued by the University, essentially finding that the posts of the Agricultural Officer/Technical Officer are not of equivalent grade as that of the Assistant Professor and that the scale of pay was also lower than that of the Assistant Professor. Finding so and also holding that the basic qualifications were different, the benefits were not extended to the petitioner.

4. The facts as well as the pleadings in the connected writ petitions are also more or less similar.

5. I have heard Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Robson Paul, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent herein.

6. As already noticed, three claims were made by the petitioners. As regards the first and the third claims noticed above, this Court notices the judgment at Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.9390 of 2012. The learned Single Judge of this Court, extensively referred to Clause No.7 of the UGC Regulations and found that if the applicant was working in an institution with the same grade or the same scale, he was entitled for the same benefits. It was categorically found by this Court that cumulative satisfaction of the grade/pay was not required. It was found that, if either of the afore is shown as satisfied, the claimant has to be extended the benefits. Furthermore, as regards the third point also, this Court categorically found in paragraph No.21 of the judgment that the requirement of completion of one year’s service after joining the University is not required for the reasons stated thereunder.

7. With reference to the afore, when the findings contained in Ext.P8 are analysed, I am of the opinion that the respondent University has been carried away mainly on account