Delhi High Court
Anil C. Ittyerah S/O P.I. Ittyerah ... vs The Chairman Indian Institute Of ... on 24 March, 2006
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 16th July, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge in CW 3142/1991.
2. The facts of the case have been stated in the impugned judgment and order and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Suffice it to say that the Appellant sought quashing of Clause 4(ii) of the Circular dated 25th June, 1990 issued by the Respondent.
3. By the impugned Circular the Merit Promotion Scheme, which has been in operation of the Respondent since 1985 was modified according to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and adopted with appropriate modification by the Respondent in January, 1988 and notified in February, 1988.
4. Clause 2 of the Circular states as follows:-
The revised lower pay-scale for Readers and Professors promoted under the Merit Promotion Scheme would be retained as provided in para 19 of the UGC guidelines adopted by IIPA.
Clause 4(ii) of the Circular with which the Appellant is aggrieved reads as follows:-
4. The Faculty Members who were in service in IIPA on 1.1.86 would be given an opportunity to opt for this Merit Promotion Scheme. This will, however, be subject to the following conditions:
4(i) xx xx xx
(ii) The other faculty members who were in service on 1.1.1986 and opt for the Merit Promotion Scheme will get the revised lower pay scales as recommended by the UGC guidelines on their promotion in future, viz.,
Reader : Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000
Professor : Rs. 4500-150-5700.
(iii) xx xx xx
5. Another prayer made in the writ petition was for striking down Clause 5 of the Circular. We find that the Circular does not contain any Clause 5. In any event, the prayer made is that it should be directed that all promotions under the Merit Promotion Scheme will be from the date of eligibility of the concerned faculty member.
6. A few other paragraphs of the Circular are important to show that the Merit Promotion Scheme was optional and in the event a faculty member did not opt for the Merit Promotion Scheme, it would be assumed that he would like to be governed by the Career Development Scheme. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
In future, promotions of the faculty members, who opt for Merit Promotion Scheme covered under para 4(ii) above would be from the date of eligibility or from the date next to the date last promotion made so far, whichever may be later. Promotions under Merit Promotion Scheme covered under para 4(i) above, if any, shall also be from the date of eligibility or from the date of last promotion made under that scheme, which ever is later. Wherever the ceiling of one-third is reached, further merit promotion must await availability of vacancies due to retirement or otherwise. Such promotion will be effective from the date of eligibility as clarified above or the date of availability of such vacancy whichever is later.
In terms of the above, the Members of the Faculty interest in the Merit Promotion Scheme are requested to submit their option in the enclosed form by 30th July, 1990. The option once exercised shall be final. In case no option is exercised on or before the stipulated date it will be presumed that the member of the faculty will be governed by the Career Development Scheme.
7. The Appellant exercised his option for the Merit Promotion Scheme and derived benefits there from. As such, it does not lie with the Appellant to challenge the Merit Promotion Scheme after he had opted for it and derived advantages there from. If the Appellant was not satisfied with the Merit Promotion Scheme, he could have chosen to be governed by the Career Development Scheme, but he did not do so. It is not as if the Appellant is not a literate person. Having once exercised his option, the Appellant cannot now be permitted to back out of it to suit his convenience.
8. The second contention that was urged by learned counsel for the Appellant before us is with regard to the fact that persons under the Merit Promotion Scheme would get a lower pay scale as against others who were either promoted earlier or were directly recruited. The grievance of the Appellant is with regard to the pay scale for Readers to which grade he was promoted under the Merit Promotion Scheme. His pay was fixed in the grade of Reader at Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 (MPS, IIPA, 85) whereas for other Readers it was fixed in the grade of Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700 (UGC, CDS, 86). The Appellant invoked the principle of equal pay for equal work in support of his contention.
9. In so far as the question of equal pay for equal work is concerned, we have already expressed our views in detail in Union of India v. G.K.K. Pillai LPA No. 563/2003 decided on 22.11.2005. The legal position having been discussed by us in detail in the above decision, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Suffice it to say that there is no merit in this contention raised by the Appellant.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is upheld.
