Delhi High Court
Dr. K.G. Jolly (Dead Through Lrs) vs Institute Of Economic Growth & ... on 12 August, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#2
W.P. (C) 3191/1993
DR. K.G. JOLLY
(DEAD THROUGH LRS) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Advocate.
versus
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through Mr. S.K. Trivedi with
Mr. Pawan Kumar Aggawal, Advocate
for R -1 & 2
Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the order? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? No
ORDER
12.08.2011
1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, a former faculty member of the
Institute of Economic Growth („IEG‟) [Respondent No. 1], seeking a direction
to Respondents, i.e., IEG, University of Delhi [Respondent No. 3] and the
Union of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, [Respondent No.
4] to fix the Petitioner‟s pay in terms of the Fundamental Rule 22-C with effect
from March and April 1974, and pay him all arrears of pay allowance and
increments.
2. The Petitioner joined the IEG in 1959. In 1973 his pay scale was revised
from Rs. 375-25-575 to Rs. 650-30-740-35-880-40-900 with effect from 1st
January 1973 in accordance with the Third Pay Commission („TPC‟)
recommendations which were accepted by the IEG. However, the Petitioner
drew his salary in the scale of Rs. 350-575 till October 1974 and was paid
arrears only up to 28th February 1974. He stated that he had not been paid
arrears on account of revision of pay scale from 1st March 1974 to 31st October
1974.
3. According to the Petitioner, he was issued a letter promoting him as Junior
Fellow/Lecturer and placing him in the higher post reduced his basic pay from
Rs. 525/- to Rs. 520/- with effect from 1st January 1975 without assigning any
reason for the same. The Petitioner represented but this yielded no results.
Invoking FR 22-C the Petitioner states that his pay should have been ` 750-
1600/- with effect from 1st March 1974 on his promotion from the post of
Research Analyst in the scale of ` 650-960/- to the post of Junior Fellow
(Research Associate) in the scale of ` 700-1600/-. In April 1984 the Petitioner
was promoted as Reader. However the anomaly arising out of the incorrect
fixation of pay was adversely affecting the Petitioner. In 1988 four posts in the
administrative cadre were upgraded and pay fixation was effected by applying
FR 22-C(i). However, the Petitioner was denied any relief. Ultimately, the
present writ petition was filed on 27th May 1993.
4. Rule was issued by this Court at the first hearing of the present writ petition
on 13th July 1993 "limited to the question of re-fixation of pay of the Petitioner
when he was promoted in 1984."
5. During the pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner expired and was
substituted by his legal representatives („LRs‟).
6. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the IEG, a preliminary objection was
raised as to laches in the Petitioner preferring the present petition. It was
submitted that the Petitioner was seeking to reopen "the financial implications
pertaining to the period 1974-75 onwards". It is then submitted that the
recommendations of the TPC were extended by the IEG to both academic and
non-academic staff of the IEG with effect from 1st January 1973. In respect of
the Population Research Centre („PRC‟) the pay scales and the nomenclature of
the posts were rationalised retrospectively with effect from 1st March 1974 as
per the staffing pattern prescribed in the letter dated 26th June 1974 of the
Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Government of India. The Petitioner
was accordingly paid salary in accordance with the rationalised scale with
effect from 1st March 1974. Arrears were to be paid on the basis of pre-
rationalised scale only till 28th February 1974. It is stated that the Petitioner was
drawing a basic salary of ` 500/- in the pre-rationalized scale of ` 350-25-575
as on 28th February 1974. Following the TPC recommendation, the Petitioner‟s
basic pay was fixed in the rationalised scale of ` 400-30-540-40-800 at ` 480
plus ` 20 PP with effect from 1st March 1974 as per the FR 22 (a) (ii) as was
done in other cases. The audit instructions explaining the implications of the
said FR vis-à-vis the personal pay reads as under:
Regulation of pay of government servant in respect of
personal pay under FR 22 (a) (ii) when he earns next
increment.
When the next increment in the time scale of either the new or
the old post falls due, the government servant should draw
next increment in the time scale of the new post, and forthwith
lose the personal pay and all connections with the time scale
of the old post. The personal pay is given to a government
servant only for the purpose of initial pay and not at any
subsequent stage in the new time scale in which the
government servant might draw less pay than he would have
drawn had he remained in the old time scale."
7. It is stated that the FR 22-C was not attracted to the facts and circumstances
of the case as it was not a case of promotion but of rationalization of posts and
the scales of pay. Moreover, if it had been a case of promotion to the next
higher scale, the post ought to have been advertised; appointment could be only
by selection by a duly constituted selection committee and approval of its
minutes by the Chairman, Board of Governors. The qualification for the higher
post at the relevant time was a good academic record with at least second class
in M.A. in the subject with Ph.D., whereas the qualification of the Petitioner at
the time of rationalization was M.A. third class. FR 22-C was applied in the
case of certain non-academic posts whereas the Petitioner was part of the
academic staff.
8. The above submissions have been considered. It does appear that there was
rationalization of posts in the IEG following the acceptance of the TPC
recommendations. The document enclosed with the counter affidavit of the IEG
shows that the Petitioner who was a Research Analyst was, pursuant to the
rationalization, designated as Junior Fellow in the pay scale of Rs. 400-40-800-
50-950 with effect from 1st March 1974. It is stated therein that "these grades
have since been revised in accordance with the recommendations of the TPC
retrospectively."
9. This Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the IEG in the
matter of fixation of pay of the Petitioner. This was not a case of promotion but
of rationalization of posts and the scales of pay. Therefore, the FR 22-C would
not apply.
10. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AUGUST 12, 2011
rk
