Financial Crisis Cannot Indefinitely Deny Eligible Faculty's Career Advancement Benefits: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-27

Kerala High Court Directs IHRD to Grant Overdue Promotions, Cites Financial Woes as Invalid Excuse for Indefinite Delay

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling addressing prolonged delays in granting career benefits, the Kerala High Court has directed the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) and the State of Kerala to implement the AICTE/UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for eligible faculty members. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that administrative hurdles and financial constraints cannot be used to indefinitely deny legitimate promotions and higher pay scales that have been due for over a decade.

The court delivered a composite judgment disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by engineering and non-engineering faculty from various IHRD colleges, who have been fighting for their rightful placement as Associate Professors and the corresponding pay band of ₹37,400–67,000 since 2010.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case involves three separate writ petitions filed by faculty members of IHRD, an autonomous institution under the Kerala government. The petitioners argued that despite a 2010 government order implementing revised AICTE pay scales, they were denied re-designation and placement in the higher pay band. Their initial representations were rejected in 2018, citing pending audit objections from 2011-12 and IHRD's poor financial health.

Subsequent government actions led to the formation of a committee to re-verify the pay fixation of 137 faculty members, creating further uncertainty and threatening potential pay reductions and recovery of previously paid salaries. The petitioners contended this was arbitrary, especially as other similarly situated colleagues had been granted the same benefits. Many of the petitioners' claims were also backed by previous judgments from the High Court, which the respondents had failed to fully implement.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Contentions:

- They met all eligibility criteria under the AICTE/UGC schemes for re-designation and higher pay.

- The respondents' reliance on decade-old audit objections and financial difficulties was a pretext to deny their rights.

- The actions of IHRD and the State were discriminatory, creating an unfair disparity among faculty members.

- The attempt to re-evaluate their service and qualifications after nearly 14 years was illegal and contrary to earlier court orders that had settled their seniority and eligibility.

Respondents' Stance (State of Kerala and IHRD):

- IHRD, being an autonomous body, is facing an acute financial crisis and cannot bear the additional annual expenditure of ₹5.42 crores required to implement the CAS.

- The State Government has provided significant grants but cannot shoulder the full financial responsibility for IHRD.

- Pay fixation for 137 faculty members was flagged with irregularities by the Accountant General, necessitating a thorough verification process before any benefits could be extended.

- While a Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee had finally approved the petitioners' eligibility, the government had decided to defer the implementation of the scheme "for better times" due to the financial crunch.

Court's Rationale and Directions

After reviewing the prolonged litigation history and the numerous affidavits filed by the state and IHRD, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. concluded that the reasons cited for the delay were no longer tenable. The court noted that a government-appointed committee had already scrutinized the petitioners' eligibility and found several of them qualified.

The judgment emphasized that once the eligibility of the faculty was established and approved by the competent committee, the implementation could not be postponed indefinitely. The court segregated the petitioners based on the findings of the verification committee.

"Taking note of the fact that the said committee constituted by the Government... had gone into the issue of eligibility of the petitioners and the same having been found in their favour and which stands accepted by government and IHRD, there is no reason for not implementing the same." - Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.

Final Verdict

The High Court issued specific directions based on the petitioners' eligibility:

1. For Eligible Petitioners: The court directed the respondents to grant the benefits of placement in the higher pay band (₹37,400–67,000) and re-designation as Associate Professors to the five petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 37813/2018 who were found fully eligible by the scrutiny committee. This must be done within six months.

2. For Petitioners with Objections: Faculty members whose cases were flagged for irregularities (e.g., erroneous increments) were granted the liberty to submit fresh representations. The authorities are directed to consider these and pass appropriate orders within six months.

3. For Other Petitioners: For the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 5258 and 5261 of 2022, whose claims had not yet been scrutinized, the court directed that their cases be placed before the committee for a fresh evaluation and a decision be taken within six months.

This judgment provides a significant reprieve to the long-suffering faculty members and sets a precedent that financial difficulties of an institution cannot be a perpetual barrier to honouring the service rights of its employees.