The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the Juniors cannot draw more salary than Seniors under implementation of the subsequent scheme.
The Devision Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that it is also true that it is not a universal principal that the senior in a cadre must always draw higher scale than his junior and that on valid grounds the junior may draw higher scale than senior.
Facts of Case
The respondent in the present appeal was working as the Assistant Professor at the Kerala Agricultural University in 1989 during which she acquired her PhD in 1988. Meanwhile, the State issued an order in 1991 introducing the scheme of the University Grants Commission with effect from 1986, whereby the respondent was inducted to the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 23.02.1989.
Pursuant to this, the 1996 UGC Scheme was introduced in the University, and she was designated as Associate Professor (Senior Scale) and was further granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 07.11.1998 under the conditions of the 1996 Scheme.
Thereafter, she was granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Professor from 2006 under the 1996 UGC Scheme on completing eight years in the post of Associate Professor. However, her basic pay was fixed as such that it resulted in being on a lower scale despite having a promotion.
In the meantime, the 2006 UGC Scheme was introduced in the University. Thereafter, one other recruit, who was directly recruited in 1987 and obtained PhD in 2006 was granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Associate Professor in 2006.
Her salary fixed under the 2006 UGC Scheme was Rs.60,080/-, whereas the respondent who became a Professor in 2006 was granted a payscale of only Rs.59,280/- resulting in the junior getting a higher scale of pay compared to her, despite both of them being equally qualified and working in equivalent posts.
Aggrieved, she sent a representation inter alia pointing out that she was denied normal increment from February and that after granting two advance increments from 7-11-1998, the same was granted only from November.
It was her contention that the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala State Subordinate Rules are applicable to the University employees, and therefore, action ought to have been taken on her representation for rectifying the anomalies that crept in the payslip.
It was submitted that the revised statement of fixation of pay under the 2006 Scheme was also produced to point out that the fixation of salary was wrong. As such, she argued that the anomaly has to be corrected by stepping up her salary to that of the junior.
In 2020, the petition was allowed by a single-judge and the University was directed to re-fix the salary of the petitioner on the basis of the salary of the immediate junior and grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months.
However, in the review petition filed by the University, it was contended that there was no anomaly, as Dr Devi received the benefit of the 2006 UGC Regulations, which awarded three advance increments as opposed to the respondent who got only two advance increments based on the 1996 UGC Regulations. It was further submitted that the shortfall in her pay to that of a junior was not a consequence of any pay fixation or error from the part of the University and that she was not entitled to the relief claimed.
The Review Petition was however dismissed and therefore the present appeal before the High Court.
High Court's Observation
The Counsels for the University has contended that the teachers were awarded advance increments on the basis of the then existing schemes and policies and the writ petitioner cannot contend that there is an anomaly to be corrected and that the anomaly can arise only when there is a fixation of pay resulting in a situation stipulated as per Rule 28(A) Part I KSR.
It was further submitted that the Career Advancement Promotions and the acquisition of superior qualification are all purely personal and not seniority based and thus benefits prescribed by the UGC may vary from time to time and that the promotion to teachers are not cadre based promotions i.e. from a lower post to a higher post and the designation of an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor are positions given to a teacher based on their personal qualification and not based on any vacancy or seniority. In such cases a junior teacher / scientist under the UGC drawing more pay than his senior is not an anomaly.
The Court noted that it is well settled in Gurucharan Singh (supra) that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where their juniors are permitted to draw more salary than respondents 1 to 5 and that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.
"Though, it is true that Rule 28(A) of Part I KSR would apply only in cases where the anomaly arises out of fixation of pay pursuant to a pay revision order and that it does not apply to an anomaly arising as a result of time bound higher grade promotions and that as the anomaly is not as a result of a fixation of pay, seniors salary will not be stepped up to that of the juniors, it is also true that it is not a universal principal that the senior in a cadre must always draw higher scale than his junior and that on valid grounds the junior may draw higher scale than senior."
The Court found the present case to be well-covered in Director, NIT Calicut and Others (supra), and therefore observed that the impugned single-judge judgement warrant no interference more so when there will be no prejudice caused to others in service who are admittedly junior to the petitioner.
The appeal was thus accordingly dismissed.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
