HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 104 of 2021

30 July, 2025 Vijay Bahuguna and Another --Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought the following relief(s):-

“A. quash the order dated 31/12/2019 bearing no.

fMxzhvFkZ@vkB(1)fofo/k@8826@2019&20 (Annexure No.8, passed by Respondent No. 2, holding that the order is against the letter and spirit of the U.G.C.

Notifications of the year 1998 and 2009.

B. pass an order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the incentives as have been contemplated under the incentivisation scheme of the U.G.C. Notifications.

C. grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2. It is not in dispute that petitioners were appointed as Lecturer in a Government Aided Institution, namely, D.B.S. P.G. College Dehradun on 19.12.2009. Since both of them possessed Ph.D. Degree at the time of appointment, therefore, they staked claim for five advance increments at the entry level. A Selection Committee constituted by Management of D.B.S. P.G. College recommended case of petitioners for grant of five advance increments. The Director, Higher Education, however, refused to grant benefit as claimed by petitioners by relying upon Government Order dated 28.05.2013 whereby Career Advancement Scheme 2010, introduced by The University Grants Commission (for short “U.G.C.”), was adopted by State Government. The U.G.C. scheme, as adopted by State Government vide Government Order dated 28.05.2013, contains the following stipulations, first of which is relied by petitioners and the other one is relied by State:-

“E(1) Five Non-Compounded advance increments shall be admissible at the entry level of recruitment as Assistant Professor to persons possessing the degree of Ph.D. awarded in a relevant discipline by the University following the process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as prescribed by the UGC.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing clauses, those who have already availed the benefits of advance increments for possessing Ph.D. /M.Phil. at the entry level under the earlier Schemes/Regulations shall not be entitled to the benefit of advance increments under these Regulations”

3. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioners availed benefit of Senior Scale upon completing four years of service w.e.f. 19.12.2013 and five years thereafter they were given Selection Grade Pay w.e.f. 19.12.2018, therefore, claim staked for five non- compounded advance increments is not tenable, in view of Clause E(8) of the Scheme introduced by U.G.C., as referred to herein above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that petitioners were appointed on 19.12.2009 and the Career Advancement Scheme, 2010 was introduced by U.G.C. soon thereafter, therefore, it was incumbent upon the State Government to provide five non-compounded advance increments to them.

5. Learned State Counsel, however replies, by submitting that Career Advancement Scheme, 2010 was adopted by State Government only on 28.05.2013 and after adoption of Career Advancement Scheme, petitioners were given senior scale and selection grade pay. He further submits that as per Career Advancement Scheme, 2010, issued by U.G.C., Clause E(8) provides that a teacher can either have advance increment for Ph.D. at entry level or other benefits as per the Scheme, however, no one can have both benefits. Thus, he submits that since petitioners opted for other benefits, t