Delhi High Court
N.V.Ayyar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 7 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5391/2002
% 7th February, 2013
N.V.AYYAR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S.Singh,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. R.K.Singh and Ms. Deepa Rai,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner Sh. N.V.Ayyar seeking a writ order or direction to the
respondents (respondent no.1 being the Ministry of Human Resource Development
and respondent no.2 being the employer-School of Planning and Architecture) to
fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of ` 4500-5700-7300 w.e.f. 3.1.1989
(being the date of appointment of petitioner as the Registrar with respondent no.2)
and to further re-fix the pay-scale on the higher pay-scale fixed of ` 14,300-18,300
W.P.(C) 5391/2002 Page 1 of 6
w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and thereafter accordingly grant all monetary benefits to the
petitioner including revision of pension.
2. The petitioner has based his case on the communication/letter dated
2.11.1988 issued by the respondent no.1 sent to the University Grants Commission.
As per this communication dated 2.11.1988, the pay-scale of a Registrar was fixed
in the revised pay-scale of ` 4500-150-5700-200-7300, and to come into effect
from 1.1.1986 in terms of para 4 of the letter.
3. The petitioner was granted revised scale of pay of ` 1500-2500 in
terms of an order dated 20.3.1987 of the respondent no.2, and which scale of pay is
lesser than that scale of pay fixed by the letter of the respondent no.1 dated
2.11.1988. The petitioner alongwith others had earlier filed a writ petition, being
W.P.(C) 2720/1993, and this writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.3.1995 whereby the Union of India-
respondent no.1 was directed to refer for appropriate decision to AICTE within
three months on the aspect of grant of UGC scales to non-teaching staff of the
respondent No.2.
4. The respondent no.1 on 25.7.1994 did communicate a decision to
upgrade the scale of pay with respect to the post of Registrar of respondent no.2 to
`4500-5700, however, as per para 3 of this communication dated 25.7.1994, the
respondent no.2 was directed to make the benefit applicable only from the financial
W.P.(C) 5391/2002 Page 2 of 6
year 1994-1995. This communication was made after passing of the order dated
16.3.1995 in W.P.(C) No. 2720/1993. The respondent No.1 addressed the
communication dated 24.12.1999 to the respondent no.2 whereby the respondent
no.2 was informed that the revised pension with respect to the petitioner was to be
stepped up to 50% of the minimum of the corresponding scale of pay (revised) as
on 1.1.1996. The effect of this communication was that the petitioner was denied
the benefit of the communication of the respondent no.1 to the University Grants
Commission dated 2.11.1988 whereby the pay-scale of a Registrar was fixed as
`4500-7300/- (which is referred to above). It is this communication dated
24.12.1999 which is effectively in challenge in the present writ petition alongwith
the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 of the respondent no.2 and
the consequent letter dated 28.11.2001 to the petitioner.
5. The issue in the present case is thus that whether the respondents are
bound to comply with the communication dated 2.11.1988 sent to the University
Grants Commission, and which made applicable the revised pay-scale of Registrars
also to deemed universities such as the respondent no.2, or, can the respondent
no.1 rely on a policy decision to deny grant to the petitioner of revised scale of
pay required by the communication dated 2.11.1988 and only grant to the
petitioner the benefit in terms of the letter dated 24.12.1999 of stepping up the
W.P.(C) 5391/2002 Page 3 of 6
scale of pay to 50% of corresponding scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 and not the
upgraded scale on 1.1.1996.
6. Once we read the letter of the respondent no.1 dated 2.11.1988 to the
University Grants Commission, there remains no iota of doubt that the revised pay-
scale of the Registrars of all universities, including deemed universities, was fixed
in the scale of pay of ` 4500-5700-7300. It is not disputed that the petitioner
qualified the requirements of a Registrar as required under this communication
dated 2.11.1988. Therefore, the communication dated 2.11.1988 was squarely
applicable in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are unjustified in denying
the benefit of revised scale of pay in terms of the letter dated 2.11.1988 so far as
the petitioner is concerned.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 sought to very vehemently
argue that the decision of the respondent no.1 conveyed to the respondent no.2 by
the letter dated 24.12.1999 was passed on a policy decision, and therefore, such
policy decision cannot be ignored by the Court.
8. I have really failed to appreciate the argument urged on behalf of
respondent no.1 of a policy decision to deny the benefit to the petitioner of a scale
of pay fixed by the extant communication dated 2.11.1988. The communication
dated 2.11.1988 is of no other entity but of the respondent no.1 itself, and by which
communication, all universities which are funded by the respondent no.1 and the
W.P.(C) 5391/2002 Page 4 of 6
University Grants Commission, made applicable the revised scale of pay of the
Registrar to `4500-5700-7300. The respondent no.2 is a deemed university and
therefore in terms of para-5 of this communication dated 2.11.1988 this
communication did apply to the respondent no.2. A policy decision cannot be a
policy decision which violates the extant and applicable
orders/circulars/communications which are applicable to all universities and
deemed universities. If the respondent no.1 is allowed to do so then it will amount
to a policy of pick and choose which violates the fundamental right of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No reason is given in the
communication dated 24.12.1999 sent by the respondent no.1 to the respondent
no.2 as to why the communication dated 2.11.1988 will not apply for the benefit of
the petitioner. Therefore, the communication dated 24.12.1999 sent by the
respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2 is arbitrary in nature and needs to be struck
down. If we really were to apply the finality of the communication dated
24.12.1999 to the petitioner, then it amounts that the petitioner is being
discriminated without any rhyme or reason although all other similarly situated
persons being the Registrars are covered by the communication dated 2.11.1988 of
the respondent no.1 to the University Grants Commission.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed by directing
respondents to give petitioner the scale of pay as provided in the letter dated
W.P.(C) 5391/2002 Page 5 of 6
2.11.1988. The petitioner who retired on 28.2.1991 so far as his terminal benefits,
as also pension, are concerned, will be entitled to the benefit of scale of pay which
is fixed in terms of the communication dated 2.11.1988 of the respondent no.1 to
the University Grants Commission. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest
at 6% per annum simple on the arrears payable to him during the pendency of the
petition in this Court. The monetary benefits in terms of today's judgment be
released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case, dues
are not paid within three months from today, then the petitioner will be entitled to
interest at 9% per annum simple thereafter.
FEBRUARY 07, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
