Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33806
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
DR V D RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 32534/2014
State clarifications cannot undermine central government pay structures established for educational qualifications under UGC schemes.
Headnote:
Increments - Education - Government Order List - The court emphasized that the education department's pay structure for Ph.D holders cannot be altered by state clarifications, reaffirming rights established under the UGC guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ for the approval of advanced increments as a Ph.D holder based on a specific government order, citing unjust denial.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the denial of increments was illegal, referencing a central government order that supersedes state modifications regarding pay for Ph.D holders.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to advanced increments under the UGC scheme despite state clarifications denying such benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The state cannot modify pay structures dictated by the central government regarding educational grants, particularly concerning UGC guidelines.
Final Decision: The writ petition was granted, allowing the petitioner to receive advanced increments.
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:
(A) A writ or direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to grant all revised increments for Ph.D holders as per Ext.P3 Govt. order to the petitioner in accordance with law.
(B) A Writ or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 petition on the basis of Ext.P10 pay and allowance list in accordance with law without delay in the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that advance increments are denied to the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P4 clarification issued to Ext.P3 order. It is submitted that advance increments were specifically allowed to W.P.(C) No.32534/2014 2 persons like the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P3 and that therefore denial of benefits to the petitioner is illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P13 order issued by the Central Government specifically pointing out that State Government cannot make modifications lowering the pay package prescribed by the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. On the strength of this order, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the teachers who entered in service with Ph.D before 01.01.2006 are not entitled to increments on the strength of Ext.R2(b) clarification issued by the Government.
6. In view of Ext.P13 order issued by the Central W.P.(C) No.32534/2014 3 Government, it is clear that such clarifications cannot be made applicable to deny the benefits granted by the UGC scheme. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P8 is set aside. It is declared that the petitioner would be entitled to advance increments as contained in Ext.P3 scheme for possession of PhD. Consequential orders shall be passed by the competent among the respondents and monetary benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
