Delhi High Court
Ugc Class-I Officer'S ... vs University Grants Commn. on 15 October, 1999
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner's Association has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue:
i A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to implement its decision taken in its meeting held on 12.12.1995.
ii A direction to implement the Office Order dated 23.5.1996 with immediate effect.
iii .A direction to refer the issue relating to revision of pay scales of UGC Officers to the UGC Pay Committee for University Teachers and Administrative Officers."
2. On the 5th of May, 1997 when the matter came up before the this Court, the following order was passed directing the Central Government to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner/Association:
"CW.4656/96
The UGC Class-I Officers Association has preferred this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to implement the decision taken on 12.12.1995 by the UGC.
The said decision is as follows:
"The Commission agreed that the pay scale of Joint Secretary may be revised from Rs. 4500-5700 to Rs. 5100-6300 and that of Additional Secretary from Rs. 5100-5700 to Rs. 5900-6700 to remove the anomaly which is persisting since the revision of pay scales, in pursuance of the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations as accepted by the Commission w.e.f.1.1.1986. In this connection, the Commission noted that the pay scales of Financial Adviser and Secretary of the UGC had been revised earlier, after implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, without any reference to any Committee or the Pay Commission. The Commission, therefore, desired that the Ministry of Human Resource Development may be approached for its concurrence. The Secretary (Education), MHRD, expressed the view that there should be no difficulty for the Government of India to accept this recommendation of the Commission and that he would respond positively within a week."
The Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations adopted by the UGC w.e.f. 1.1.1986 have yet not been implemented because of the inordinate delay in getting the approval by the Union of India.
It may be pertinent to mention that number of letters and requests have been sent from the University Grants Commission to the Central Government. In the letter dated 15.7.1996, sent by the Chairperson of the UGC to Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, has mentioned that matter has now dragged on for 10 full years. The three Chairmen of the UGC, namely, Prof. Yashpal, Dr. Reddy and Prof. Desai had written number of letters but no decision has been taken by the respondent UOI till date.
In this writ petition the Union of India was imp leaded as a party respondent and a number of opportunities have been given to the learned Standing Counsel for the UOI to apprise this Court about the decision of the Central Government which is pending for several years.
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the UOI submits that the decision has yet not been taken. This Court fails to understand why the Central Government has not able to take the decision in this matter for the several years.
Mr. Sharma, suggests that the final opportunity be given to the Central Government to decide the matter and he has given an undertaking to the Court that this matter shall be decided by a reasoned order by the UOI within two weeks from today, failing which the Secretary (Expenditure) shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing to explain why the decision has not been taken? I order accordingly.
At the request of Mr. Sharma, adjourned to 21st May, 1997.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties."
3. On the 15th of May, 1997, the Central Government pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, wrote to the University Grants Commission, hereinafter called UGC, turning down the request made by the petitioner/Association. The contents of the order passed by the Central Government would have to be dealt with at the appropriate stage.
4. The only point that was argued before me was whether the approval of the Government is necessary for the UGC to implement its decision taken on the 12th of December, 1995 following an office order dated 23.5.1996. The decision taken by the UGC on the 12th of December, 1995 is as under:-
"The Commission agreed that the pay scale of Joint Secretary may be revised from Rs. 4500-5700 to Rs. 5100-6300 and that of Additional Secretary from Rs. 5100-5700 to Rs. 5900-6700 to remove the anomaly which is persisting since the revision of pay scales, in pursuance of the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations as accepted by the Commission w.e.f.1.1.1986. In this connection, the Commission noted that the pay scales of Financial Adviser and Secretary of the UGC had been revised earlier, after implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, without any reference to any Committee or the Pay Commission. The Commission, therefore, desired that the Ministry of Human Resource Development may be approached for its concurrence. The Secretary (Education), MHRD, expressed the view that there should be no difficulty for the Government of India to accept this recommendation of the Commission and that he would respond positively within a week."
5. The office order dated 23.5.1996 reads as under :-
"In pursuance of the decision taken by the Commission at its meeting held on 12.12.1995 (Item No.7.01(i), it has been agreed to provide the replacement scales for Joint Secretaries and Additional Secretaries and equivalent Officers w.e.f. the 12th December, 1995 as under:-
Name of the Post Existing Replacement
Scale Scale
(Rs) (Rs)
Joint Secretary/ 4500-5700 5100-6300
Joint Director
Addl.Secretary/ 5100-5700 5900-6700
Director
6. Originally, the UGC alone was made a party in the writ petition. Subsequently, the Government of India was imp leaded. Some time later, Dr. Mukherjee, who is working in UGC, sought to implead himself as a party and he was imp leaded as a third respondent.
7. In view of the facts that the power and jurisdiction of the UGC to pass the Resolution dated 12.12.1995 and the Office Order dated 23.5.1996 is disputed by the Central Government, it is necessary to notice what is stated in the writ petitions.
8. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is stated:
"That presently there are three posts of Additional Secretaries and equivalent and sixteen posts of Joint Secretary and equivalent in the Commission. The petitioner - Association, by virtue of the instant petition, is raising the issue of grant of higher pay scales to the Officers holding the posts of Additional Secretary and the Joint Secretary and equivalent posts (herein after referred to as "The said Officers"). The said Officers of the petitioner - Association are performing the onerous duties in as much as they have to assist the key officials (Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary as also the Members of the Commission) to enable them to discharge their role effectively as all of them happen to be on term appointments. In all their endeavours, the said Officers have to work with the persons with senior positions in the Universities such as Vice-Chancellors, Senior University Academics, Professors, Principals, Registrars and Finance Officers etc.. It is significant to point here that most of the said Officers are holding Ph. D. Degrees, having first class careers and several years of research to their credit before they joined the Commission in various capacities. They have initially been recruited by open selection on all-India basis by open selection."
9. The petitioner has stated that the officers of the UGC, after good academic career, had joined this organisation and the Government of India and the UGC had not appreciated the position of the officers. It is the claim of the petitioner that the officers having similar qualifications and discharging similar duties and responsibilities, cannot be denied their due emoluments. The officers of the UGC were not put on the scales of pay as recommended by the Pay Commission while officers similarly situated in Government and other public authorities are given the emoluments as fixed by the Pay Commissions. The petitioner stated that the officers of the UGC are paid less than pay of the Professors in colleges.
10. A comparative analysis of the scales of pay of the officers of the petitioner/Association and the teaching staff of the Universities would show the position of the officers of the UGC. The analysis is as follows:-
Years Pay Scale of
------------------------------------------------------------------
E.O./U.S Professor Reader Lecturer
------------------------------------------------------------------
1956-57 Rs.900-1250 Rs.800-1250 Rs.600-800 Rs.250-500
1965-66 Rs.900-1250 Rs.1000-1500 Rs.700-1100 Rs.400-800
1973-74 Rs.1200-1600 Rs.1500-2500 Rs.1200-1900 Rs.700-1600
1986-87 Rs.3000-4500 Rs.4500-7300 Rs.3700-5700 Rs.2200-4000
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. As on the 1st of January, 1996, the pay scales of the
petitioner/Association were as follows:-
Post Pay Scale
Additional Secretary Rs.5100-5700
Joint Secretary Rs.4500-5700
12. In the year 1956-57, an Under Secretary of the Government of India was getting more than a Professor. Subsequent revision of pay scales by the Pay Commissions for the teaching staff had given them more than what was being paid to the officers of the petitioner/Association. Further it is stated by the petitioner that officers of the petitioner/Association are paid less than what is paid to the Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries in the Central Government. The petitioner has given a comparative statement of the scales of pay of the officers of petitioner/Association and the pay scales of the Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary in the Government of India. The same is as under:-
Name of the Pay Scales
UGC GOI
Addl.Secretary Rs. 5100-5700 Rs. 7300-7600
Joint Secretary Rs. 4500-5700 Rs. 5900-6700
8. On the 1st of February, 1994, the petitioner/Association made a representation to the Chairman, UGC, requesting that the recommendations made by Kulandaswamy Committee appointed by the UGC itself must be implemented.
9. With a view to getting disparity removed, the petitioner submitted a Memorandum to the Vth Central Pay Commission. By letter dated 24th of January, 1995, the Vth Central Pay Commission replied by stating that autonomous organisations would not come under the purview of the Commission. On the 12th of December, 1995, the UGC, after taking into account all aspects of the matter, passed the Resolution, which extracted above, and that was followed by an Office Order dated 23.5.1996, which is also extracted above.
10. The stand taken in the petition is that by virtue of power under Regulation 10 of the University Grants Commission (Supplementary Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Regulations, 1967, the UGC has passed the Resolution dated 12.12.1995 and no approval of the Central Government is required.
11. On the 4th of April, 1997, the Central Government filed its counter. Broadly stated, the stand taken by the Central Government is that under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, whenever the UGC wanted to effect change in the service conditions of the employees appointed by the Commission, it should take prior approval of the Central Government, and inasmuch as the UGC had not obtained prior approval of the Central Government, the UGC had no power to revise the scales of pay. It is also stated that under Section 25 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Central Government alone can frame rules for specifying the terms and conditions with reference of employees appointed by the Commission. It is stated in paragraph 1 of the reply on merits in the counter filed by the Union of India:
"That para 1 of the petitioner as stated is wrong and the same is denied. It is submitted that the Commission has not passed the impugned order after taking prior approval from the Central Government as required under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. The impugned order dated 12.12.1995 in itself is illegal and void ab-initio and has no force in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioners are getting the pay scales as per the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and as decided by the Central Government and Central Government may rther change the service conditions as per the Fifth Central Pay Commission's Report, as and when the same is accepted by the Government. The Commission has to follow the procedure as laid down in the Act before changing the service conditions of its employees. It is submitted that the decision of the Commission is not binding on the Central Government if the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act itself."
It is stated in paragraph 5 of the reply on merits in the counter filed by the Union of India:
"That para 5 of the petition is wrong and the same is specifically denied. It is submitted that the qualifications like Ph. D. Degree etc. of the petitioner members are considered only for the purposes of their appointment in the Commission and the same has nothing to do with fixing of pay scales as such. It is submitted that the members of the petitioner association have to possess the minimum qualifications and fulfill other requirements before their appointment in the Commission. It is submitted that only by virtue of their qualifications, the members of the petitioner association or employees of the Commission cannot claim parity with other similarly qualified persons who are teaching and carrying on research work in the universities. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that they are treated by the Central Government discriminatly is totally wrong, mis-conceiveed and baseless and the same is specifically denied."
