HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
DR SOSAMMA JOHN – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Advocate -GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 18922/2017
Increment - Pay Scale Discrepancy - 6th UGC Scheme Section 11.1.2 - The court reinforced that advance increments granted to academic staff cannot be withdrawn, ensuring fairness in pay scales between senior and junior staff under the revised UGC pay structure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Ph.D holder and lecturer, alleged her advance increments were improperly withdrawn during salary revisions after her promotion to Assistant Professor, resulting in lesser pay than juniors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to retain her advance increments as per prior judgments and UGC regulations, emphasizing the importance of equitable pay for academic staff.
Issues: Whether the respondent can withdraw advance increments after a pay revision despite previous orders guaranteeing their retention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that benefits conferred under prior regulations must be preserved unless explicitly revoked, ensuring equitable treatment for all academic staff regardless of their promotion timeline.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay retaining her advance increments.
J U D G M E N T
The grievance of the petitioner is that the advance increment which was granted to her on being a Ph.D holder is not being reckoned while revising and re-fixing her pay on her placement as Assistant Professor, as a result of which she is getting pay far lesser than that of a junior Ph.D holder who by way of her very recent appointment gets advance increments in tune with the revised UGC scale of pay at 3% of the pay.
2. The petitioner commenced her service as Lecturer in English on 07.01.2002 in an aided college. She had acquired Ph.D in the year 1998. She was placed as Senior Scale Lecturer with effect from 07.01.2006. By virtue of the provisions contained in Ext.P1 in clause 6.16, the Ph. D holders were entitled to 4 advance increments, on their recruitment. As per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 25.10.2004, petitioner was granted 4 advance increments and her pay was fixed accordingly.
3. However, when she was placed in the Senior scale the benefit of increments were withdrawn. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P(C). No.911 of 2013. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 24.03.2015, this Court directed that the increments granted to her shall be retained and to revise her pay accordingly.
4. Consequent to the revision of pay ordered by Government in implementation of 6th UGC scheme, as per Ext.P3-G.O.(P).No.58/2010/H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010, the post of Senior Scale Lecturer was re-designated as Assistant Professor. Petitioner was re-designated as Assistant Professor on 10.05.2010. Increments admissible as per the pay revision orders are at the rate of 3% of the salary. But when her pay was revised, on her re- designation, the benefit of increments were again withdrawn. This writ petition was filed at that stage challenging the withdrawal of increments and seeking directions to grant her the benefit of increments.
5. Ext.P3 order by which the 6th UGC Scheme, was implemented provided for fixation of pay of college teachers in the revised scale of pay. As per clause 11.1.2, each increment shall be @ 3% of the sum total of pay in the relevant pay band of the AGP as applicable and shall not be compoundable. The petitioner's grievance is that on fixing her pay as Assistant Professor in implementation of the 6th UGC Scheme the advance increment which was granted to her and retained on the basis of Ext.P4 judgment.
6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner was granted 4 advance increments towards the Ph.D acquired by her. She was promoted to senior scale on completion of 4 years since she is having Ph.D, when non-Ph.D holders require 6 years of service. Therefore petitioner is not entitled to any more increments. It is stated that her pay is fixed in accordance with the relevant orders and the number and rate of increments can be given only as per the orders in force at the relevant time when one acquires Ph.D. The juniors are getting increments as per rates given in the
6th UGC Pay Revision. That cannot be an anomaly.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
8. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to advance increment in the light of Ext.P3 order. Clause 10.23 of Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2010, does not provide for taking away the benefit of increments already granted to the petitioner. But what is provided under clause 10.23 is that the teachers who have already availed the benefits of increments for acquiring Ph.D while in service, would not be entitled to the benefits under this scheme. At the same time, clause 10.21 provides that those who have already availed the benefits of advance increments for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil at the entry level under the earlier scheme shall not be entitled to the advance increment under this scheme. Clause 11.1.2 provides that each advance increment shall also be @ 3% of the sum total of pay in the relevant pay band and the AGP as applicable and shall be non-
compound
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.