Shri R.S. Vashisth vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        WP(C) Nos.17560/2005 & 17563/2005

%                                                 January 17, 2013

1.    W.P.(C) No.17560/2005

SHRI R.S. VASHISTH                             ...... Petitioner
                         Through:   Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Mr.
                                    Vikram Saini, Advocate.

                   Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.                           ..... Respondents

                  Through:          Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.1.
                                    Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate with
                                    Mr. Mayank Manish, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.2.
                                    Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.3.

2.    W.P.(C) No.17563/2005

SHRI R.S. VASHISTH                             ...... Petitioner
                         Through:   Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate with Mr.
                                    Vikram Saini, Advocate.


                   Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                  Through:           Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for
                                    respondent No.1.


                                        Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate with
                                       Mr. Mayank Manish, Advocate for
                                       respondent No.2.
                                       Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate for
                                       respondent No.3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

 To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) No.17563/2005

1. The petitioner, an employee of respondent no.3/Indraprasth

College for Women (and which college is under the respondent

No.1/University of Delhi) has filed this writ petition seeking directions for

grant to the petitioner of pay of the senior scale payable in the post of

Administrative Officer being the pay scale of `3000-5000 (revised to

`10,000-15200) w.e.f. 23.12.1997. The stated relief is claimed on the ground

that in terms of the circular/modalities dated 7.2.1995 of the respondent no.1

sent to respondent no.3, benefit of senior scale was to be given to all

employees such as the petitioner on the employees such as the petitioner

completing 20 years of service as an employee of respondent No. 3 and

additionally completing five years of continuous service as an

Administrative Officer, and which requirement as per the petitioner stood

fulfilled as on 23.12.1997.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services

of the respondent No.3 as LDC on 17.8.1967. He was thereafter

subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant and Senior Assistant

respectively. The petitioner was appointed as an Administrative Officer on

ad hoc basis on 28.12.1992 and was appointed on the regular basis to that

post on 3.9.1994. As per the petitioner, since as on 23.12.1997 he had

completed the requirement as per the circular/modalities dated 7.2.1995 sent

by respondent no.1 to respondent no.3, he became entitled to the senior scale

pay in the post of Administrative Officer. The petitioner claimed that the

petitioner was by the order of the Screening Committee of the respondent

No.3 dated 4.5.2000 held entitled to promotion to senior scale with effect

from 29.12.1998, but the same was illegally withdrawn vide communication

dated 7.3.2005 (filed in connected W.P.C. No. 17560/2005). The petitioner

claims that the withdrawal is illegal not only because the petitioner complies

with the requirement of the circular of the respondent no.1 dated 7.2.1995,

but also because the UGC/respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 16.10.2008

(document filed with an affidavit in W.P. (C) 17560/2005) has illegally put a

cut-off date of 31.10.2004 because in the self-same letter it is admitted that

no training programme of four weeks till 31.3.2003, was conducted.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the petitioner is

confusing the issue inasmuch as the issue is not with respect to completion

of 20 years service in addition to five years as an Administrative Officer,

but, of the petitioner having not complied with the requirement (d) of the

circular dated 7.2.1995 and which was that for an entitlement to exist of the

senior scale, the petitioner ought to have completed two training

programmes of four weeks duration each of educational Administration,

University Management, Accounts and Finance etc. The respondents

further argue that the letter dated 7.2.1995 issued by the respondent no.1

itself was illegal because the same flies in the face of circular dated

2.11.1988 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources

and Development which requires that the Universities and colleges before

granting Assistant Registrars and their equivalents such as Administrative

Officers a senior scale will ensure that such persons should not only have

actually eight years (not five) of service as an Administrative Officer but

also have completed two training programmes of four weeks duration each.

On behalf of respondent no.2/UGC it is specifically argued with reference to

the letter dated 12.12.2002 of respondent no.1 that UGC had not agreed to

the decision of the University taken at its own level for grant of senior pay

scale to the petitioner. The counsel for respondent no.1-University has

specifically drawn the attention of this court to letter dated 23/26.4.2002 of

the respondent no.1 written to respondent no.3-college, wherein the sanction

of grant of senior scale to the petitioner was conditional i.e subject to the

condition that the petitioner has to complete training programmes within six

months as prescribed under the rules.

4. Before me, on behalf of the petitioner it could not be disputed

that the petitioner had not done two training programmes of four weeks each

as required under the Circular dated 7.2.1995. Clearly therefore the

petitioner did not have the requisite qualification, and thus he did not meet

the requisite criteria for grant of a senior scale of an Administrative Officer

because the requirement for the grant of a senior scale is not only of

petitioner having worked for 20 years with 5/6 years experience as an

Administrative Officer (assuming it is not eight years) but also that there

was the additional necessary requirement to be complied with of completing

two training programmes of four weeks duration each. Therefore, on facts

itself, the petitioner, even assuming the circular dated 7.2.1995 was a valid

circular, cannot take the benefit for grant of senior scale in the post of an

Administrative Officer. In this regard the letter filed by the petitioner

himself as Annexure M dated 23/26.4.2002 with the writ petition shows that

the sanction of senior scale to the petitioner was subject to the condition that

the petitioner has to complete two training programmes within six months as

per the prescribed rules, and which period even if not strictly followed, yet

the petitioner must before his retirement complete two programmes of

training of four weeks each, and which the petitioner did not.

5. Therefore, surely the petitioner on facts itself is not entitled to

the relief of grant of senior scale of an Administrative Officer with effect

from 23.12.1997. Also, the argument that the UGC in its letter dated

16.10.2008 has illegally/arbitrarily fixed 31.10.2004 as the cut-off date for

completing training of two programmes, is an argument without merit

because every cut-off date has to be as on a particular date, and unless it is

shown that the cut-off date is totally arbitrarily fixed because no

programmes were conducted before the fixed cut-off date, such cut-off date

cannot be held to be illegal/arbitrary. On being asked counsel for the

petitioner could not point out any averment in the writ petition that no

training programmes of four weeks duration were conducted before the cut-

off date of 31.10.2004. Also it is not the case of the petitioner that till he

retired on 30.4.2005 no programmes of four weeks were conducted so that

he could not complete the same before his retirement.

6. The next issue which arises is that whether the payment which

has already been received by the petitioner can be deducted from the

retirement benefits which had accrued to the petitioner and from which

benefits the respondent no.3 has retained with it the amount which was paid

in excess to the petitioner on account of having wrongly granted senior scale

to the petitioner of an Administrative Office w.e.f. April, 2002. Learned

counsel for the respondent No.3-college also states that after deducting this

amount, this amount was in fact paid back to UGC/respondent No.2 by the

respondent No.3-college.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla S/o Sh.

Sarabjit Shukla Vs. Union of India and Others JT 1994 (5) SC 253 which

holds that any deduction from pay of an employee is impermissible without

following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has taken this

ground in ground (e) and para 7 of the petition in W.P.(C) 17560/2005. In

any case, being a purely legal issue, I can always look into the same even if

there is no specific ground pleaded. Since the recoveries have been made by

the respondent No.3 without issuing any show cause notice i.e without

following the principles of natural justice, I direct that the respondent No.3

will issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the recoveries can

be made against the petitioner for the amount received by the petitioner in

excess on account of having wrongly been granted the senior scale of an

Administrative Officer, and the petitioner will be at full liberty in those

proceedings to give his point of view as to why recoveries cannot be made

from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, and the respondent No.3 can justify

its stand of its entitlement to deduction from the retiral benefits. The

respondent No.3 after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner or his

representative will pass a speaking order and which will be communicated to

the petitioner. The respondent No.3 will complete the hearing and pass an

order in this regard within a period of three months from today.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed to the extent of grant of

pay of senior scale however, is disposed of with the direction for complying

of principles of natural justice so far as recoveries having been made by the

respondent No.3 without following the principles of natural justice. Parties

are left to bear their own costs.

+W.P.(C) No.17560/2005

9. This was a writ petition in which the petitioner had sought relief

of grant of pay of senior scale from the date earlier than that was granted by

the respondent No.3. Since it has been held while disposing of W.P.(C)

No.17563/2005 above that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of senior

scale, this petition for grant of senior scale from an earlier date is therefore

also dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JANUARY 17, 2013 Ne