N.R. Sharma vs Bhagat Singh College And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 822 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Last opportunity to file Counter-Affidavit having not been availed of by the UGC no further opportunity is granted in this respect. Respondent No.4, namely, Ministry of Human Resource Development has been served but has not put in appearance, it is set ex parte.

2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Superintendent/Section Officer in the University of Delhi and posted in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi on 16.12.1969. He was promoted as an Administrative Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000/- on 29.10.1992. The Petitioner claims the benefits of the University's letter dated 7th February, 1995 Annexure P-2 which reads as follows:

"No.CB-III/95/

Delhi, the 7th Feb., 95.

Subject: Modalities for placement of Ars/AOs/ACEs

and their equivalent in the senior scale of

Rs.3000-5000.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been decided by the Executive Council at its meeting held on 3rd January, 1994 to enlarge the scope of modalities as follows, for placement of Assistant Registrars/Administrative Officers/Assistant Controller of Examinations in the senior scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000 as conveyed by the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India vide their letter No.F.10-52/87-Desk (U) dated 2.11.1988.

That AR/AO/ACE who would complete either 20 years service and 5 years continuous service as Assistant Registrar in addition to the above 20 years of service or 8 years of service as Assistant Registrar would be eligible for placement in the senior pay scale of Rs.3000-5000 on the following conditions:-

a) that they have participated in the training programmes of Educational Administration, University Management, Accounts and Finance, etc., each approx. of 4 weeks duration.

b) That their performance appraisal reports are consistently satisfactory; and

c) that their confidential reports for the last three years are good.

The revised modalities shall be applicable from the date of eligibility in respect of such the incumbents who were in the University service on the date of Executive Council decision i.e. 3rd January, 1994 or who may join service in the University later.

In this connection, I am directed to inform you that it has been decided that the above modalities may also be made applicable in the case of Administrative Officer in the Colleges in accordance with the University rules in this regard.

Yours faithfully,

(JAGAN NATH)

ASSTT.REGISTRAR (COLLEGES)"

So far as conditions (a) to (c) are concerned, Mr. Saini draws attention to the specific asseverations in the Writ Petition to the effect that these conditions had been complied with by the Petitioner. Mr. Bansal, however, contends that this issue would have arisen for consideration only if the dispute as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to the higher pay-scales had not run into objections of the UGC. The undisputed fact remains that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not constituted by the College "due to certain unavoidable circumstances", as spelt out in the College letter dated 19/24th October, 2000. The Petitioner submits that the DPC met but a decision on the subject had been deferred. I, therefore, cannot accept the argument of Mr. Bansal that the DPC could not be held because of the conundrum as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the University letter dated 7th February, 1995. The Petitioner has retired on 30th November, 2000 and it would now be an absurdity to hold a DPC. Restricted to the facts and circumstances of this case alone, I hold that the Petitioner had fulfillled the three conditions (a) to (c) spelt out in Annexure P2.

3. The Petitioner submits that 30 persons who were similarly placed have already received the benefits of payments of salary in the senior pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000. The present problem obviously has its genesis in the letters addressed to the UGC by the College seeking clearance of payment of salary to the Petitioner as per the senior scale. I can only assume that the 30 other persons who are stated to have received salaries in the senior pay-scales, serving in the Delhi University as well as its affiliated colleges under its umbrella received payments because no letter seeking clarification of the UGC had been addressed to it.

4. The dispute is between the UGC and the Delhi University. According to the stand taken by the UGC it had sanctioned the placement of persons in the senior scale only where they had already served in that post for eight years. Counsel for the UGC states that earlier there was some confusion as to whether the benefits should accrue to persons who had served for 20 years plus 5 years in the post or only to persons who have served for 8 years in the post. The fact remains that there was confusion, and of this is so, I find no justification for an individual who has served the Institution for almost 38 years to bear the brunt of that confusion whilst similarly placed persons have enjoyed the benefit of the decision of the Delhi University, Annexure P-2.

My attention has also been drawn to the letter of the UGC dated November, 1998/2nd December, 1998. All that was sought to be clarified in that letter is that a double benefit should not result to an employee i.e. that he should have gained from a Personal Promotion Scheme/Career Growth Scheme which was then in operation and in addition thereto should receive benefit from the said Scheme. The letter itself mentions that the benefit of the Scheme which have been in existence since 8.4.1998 cannot be given to any person after 8.4.1998.

D.O.No.F.1-25/97 (DC) November, 98

Dear Sir/Madan, 2 DEC 1998

In Partial modification to my earlier D.O. Letters of even number dated 25th September, 1998 regarding revision of pay scales of the non-teaching employees in Delhi Colleges.

The matter has been reconsidered in the UGC in consultation with Ministry of Human Resource Development and decided that extension of revised scales of pay on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay commission is contingent upon discontinuance of the Personal Promotion Schemes/Career Growth Schemes which may have been in operation in the Delhi Colleges.

Orders issued on 8.4.98 extending Pay Commission's recommendations clarified that all Personal/Career Growth Schemes would need to be discontinued with immediate effect the benefit of schemes which may have been in existence before 8.4.98 can not be given to any person/organisation after 8.4.98. It is therefore clarified that only in respect of such cases where orders have been issued before 8.4.98 with due approval of competent authority can corresponding scales be given as approved by Ministry of Finance.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

(R.K. CHAUHAN)

The Petitioner, however, claims with merit that he had already become entitled to the claimed benefit with effect from 29.10.1997. The controversy of eight years service manifests from the UGC letter No.F.40-1/99 (DC) dated 9th December, 2000, which reads thus-

"The Principal

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College

Sheikh Sarai (Triveni), Phase-II

New Delhi-110017.

Subject:- Place of Administrative Officer in the next higher scale-regarding

Sir,

With reference to your letter no.SBSC/DA/27 dated 17-11-2000 on the above subject, I am directed to request you to confirm whether Sh. N.R. Sharma fulfillls the following eligibility conditions required as per Ministry of Human Resource Development letter No. F. 10-52/87 "Desk(U) dated 2.11.1988. "The Assistant Registrar and their equivalents will have a senior scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000 placement in which will be after 8 years of service provided they have participated in two training programs on Education Administration; University Management, Accounts and finance etc. each of approximately four weeks duration and their performance appraised reports are consistently satisfactory. The senior scale will be restricted to 50% of the total strength of Assistant Registrar and their equivalent grades."

Yours faithfully,

(K.K. Bansal)

Under Secretary"

5. The University Grants Commission has written letters to the University of Delhi stating that if payments have been made without its permission they shall be recovered from the person concerned authorised them. Probably this is the reason why the Petitioner has found himself in a unique and solitary position to his financial detriment, when compared with the 30 other persons who are stated to have derived benefit from the University decision Annexure P-2. Since it is the case of the Respondents themselves that there was confusion on the issue of whether the benefit would be available only to persons who had completed 8 years service in the post of Assistant Registrar/Administrative Officers/Assistant Controller of Examination, or also to persons who had already served for 20 years together with five years in the said post, this extreme measure would be needlessly harsh and inappropriate.

6. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and Respondent No.1 is directed to pay to the Petitioner within six weeks from today, all the arrears of pay treating him to be in the senior pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 (pre-revised) with effect from 29.10.1997. Keeping in perspective the confusion that exists all around, I decline from imposing costs, or from directing payment of interest on the said amount.