Back
Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari Entitled to Revised Pay Scale From Appointment Date:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the binding nature of regulations on educational institutions, the has directed to grant an associate professor the revised pay scale from the date of his appointment in 2016, not from a later clarification in 2018. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the 's dismissal of Dr. Harish Chandra Tiwari's plea, holding that universities cannot deviate from statutory guidelines under the garb of a " ."
A Tale of Two Pay Scales
The dispute began when Dr. Tiwari applied for the post of Associate Professor (Sahitya) at , Haridwar, pursuant to an advertisement dated . The advertisement explicitly stated that the post carried a pay band of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 9,000—consistent with the guidelines of , and .
However, when Dr. Tiwari was selected and issued an appointment letter on , the pay scale mentioned was the pre-revised scale of Rs. 15,600–39,100 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 8,000. This contradiction set off a four-year legal battle.
' ' or Convenient Excuse?
The university defended its position by claiming that the pay scale in the advertisement was a . It argued that the State Government's order of , sanctioning the post of Associate Professor, had fixed the pay scale at the pre-revised level. The university maintained that Dr. Tiwari could not benefit from an error in the advertisement.
Dr. Tiwari, on the other hand, contended that the university was bound by the MHRD guidelines and UGC Regulations, which had unequivocally revised the pay scale for Associate Professors to Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000. He pointed out that the State Government itself, vide order dated , had extended this revised pay scale to other state universities in Uttarakhand. Moreover, the university's own clarificatory letter of , admitted that it followed UGC regulations and that the revised pay scale was applicable.
After initial representations, the State Government clarified on , that the revised pay scale was applicable with immediate effect. However, the university granted the benefit only from that date, denying Dr. Tiwari arrears for the period from his appointment in September 2016. The High Court dismissed his , accepting the university's argument.
UGC Regulations Cannot Be Sidestepped
The found the High Court's reasoning unsustainable. The bench identified three fundamental flaws in the university's stance.
First, the
, and the
, clearly prescribed the revised pay scale for Associate Professors. The university, being a notified institution under the
, was bound by these regulations.
"Once Respondent No. 7–University unequivocally accepted that it was bound by the UGC Regulations, it was incumbent upon the University to implement the revised pay scale with effect from the date on which the same became applicable,"
the Court observed.
Second, the State Government's order of , though not expressly naming the respondent university, applied to similarly situated institutions. The mandated that the benefit could not be denied to Dr. Tiwari.
Third, the Court rejected the
defense outright.
"There is clinching evidence on record to show that the post of Associate Professor carried the pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with an AGP of Rs. 9,000 even before the appointment of the Appellant to the said post,"
the bench noted. The advertisement itself was consistent with the regulations, and the university could not
from it.
'University Ought to Honour Its Teachers'
The Court made a pointed observation about the role of universities in upholding the rights of their faculty.
"University ought to honour its teachers and uphold their rights as they undertake to impart knowledge to vast number of students and they are
from departing from the regulations and guidelines,"
the judgment stated.
"Hence, University cannot be permitted to deviate from the MHRD guidelines and UGC regulations."
The Court further held that even if the advertisement contained an error—which it did not accept—the regulations would prevail.
"
, even if it is said to be a genuine
, the guidelines are clear to the effect that revised pay scale shall be applicable and the judgments of this Court have clarified that in case of ambiguity between the advertisement and the regulations, the latter shall prevail."
Arrears Within Six Weeks
The allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It declared that Dr. Tiwari is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 37,400–67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000 from the date of his appointment, i.e., . The university was directed to calculate and release the arrears of salary resulting from the differential pay scale within six weeks from the date of the order ( ).
The ruling serves as a strong reminder to educational institutions that they cannot bypass statutory regulations through administrative convenience or claims of clerical error. Teachers, the Court emphasized, must be treated with the dignity and fairness their role demands.
