Delhi High Court
M.S.Ginti vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University & ... on 14 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1582/2001
% March 14, 2013
M.S.GINTI ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.S.C.Dhanda with
Ms. Sagari Dhanda, Advs. for R-1/JNU.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2/UGC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Sh.M.S.Ginti who
was appointed as a Curator by the respondent No.1/Jawahar Lal Nehru
University on 21.12.1987. The post of a Curator requires the Curator to
grow research crops under academic programme of the University/School
of science. Petitioner after completing 8 years of qualifying service was
given a senior scale of Rs.3,000-100-5,000/- (pre revised) with effect
from 22.12.1995. This was under the Career Advancement Scheme
(C.A.S). The petitioner claims that on implementation of the report of the
Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs.3,000-100-5,000/- has been
revised to Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- and therefore he is entitled to this
higher pay scale on account of implementation of the report of the Fifth
Pay Commission. Petitioner relies upon an Annexure P-5 which is the
scale of pay to be given in terms of the Fifth Pay Commission by the
orders of the UGC to teachers and other academic staff in Universities.
2. The respondent No.1/Jawahar Lal Nehru University in its
counter affidavit has stated that it has no objection to grant of the scale of
Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- to the petitioner if the University Grants
Commission (UGC) agrees to the same. Respondent No.1/University
has however distinguished the cases of the persons who have got the
higher scale, and which are mentioned in Annexure P-13 to the writ
petition and related documents of which are at Annexures P-14 and P-15.
3. On behalf of the respondent No.2/UGC it is argued that the
benefit of the enhanced scale of pay in terms of the report of the Fifth Pay
Commission is restricted only to Lecturers or Readers or Professors and
the enhanced pay scale is not being given and hence cannot be given to
other posts including that of a Curator to which the petitioner was
appointed. With regard to grant of the higher pay scale to four persons
mentioned in Annexure P-13, it is argued on behalf of the respondent
No.2/UGC that UGC has already questioned the grant of the higher pay
scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- to the said four persons. It is further
argued on behalf of the respondent No.2/UGC that UGC has to suitably
divide its existing grants from the Central Government, and this it has
validly done by distinguishing between the persons who are the academic
staff or deemed academic staff and persons who are non-academic staff.
4. In my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the
writ petition is bound to fail for the reason that the claim of the petitioner
to equivalence with respect to other Group „A‟ officers cannot be given
because there is no directive of the UGC to treat all officers in Group „A‟
as equal for the purpose of grant of scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-
15,200/-. The relevant circulars and directions of the UGC only require
grant of the senior pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- to the academic
staff and deemed academic staff including Lecturers, Readers and
Professors, and admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in these categories.
UGC surely is entitled to carve out a policy as per its available resources
as regards the persons to whom the higher pay scale is to be given in
terms of Fifth Pay Commission report. No challenge can be laid to the
policy as the policy is based on reason of valid distinction between the
academic and deemed academic staff as compared to the non-academic
staff of the university. It has to be borne in mind that a pay commission
report is for Central Government employees and the same does not apply
to all posts in all institutions which are governed by UGC.
5. So far as the four persons who are mentioned in Annexure P-
13 to the writ petition is concerned, the respondent No.1/University in the
counter affidavit has distinguished their cases and stated as under:-
"16. In reply to para 16 it is not denied that UGC
inquired about the pay scales of the 4 officers mentioned
in this para. University replied to the same. The cases of
all the Officers mentioned in para 16 of the writ petition
are not similar to that of the petitioner. Shri M.L.Gakhar,
A.F.O. and Shri Banwari Lal, Administrative Officer are
covered under the letter of MHRD dated 2nd November,
1988. Shri V.P.Arya is covered under the directives of
the UGC for USIC staff. Dr.M.C.Paul engaged in Adult
Education is extended the benefit of Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) as he is treated as a faculty member and is
covered under Career Advancement Scheme. As against
this it is submitted that the post of Curator is not an
academic post and a Curator belongs to non-teaching
employee, which fact has been admitted by him in para 2
of the petition. The petitioner is employed for the
botanical garden of the University and has not been doing
any teaching duties."
6. A reading of the aforesaid para shows that valid reasons
have been given of the persons being covered either under the circulars of
the Ministry of Human Resource Development or the directives of UGC,
and which has to be taken with the fact that the four persons are
effectively academic persons or deemed to be academic persons, and
unlike the petitioner who is only a Curator and not engaged in any
academic work. I may clarify that though the petitioner disputed that any
directives were issued by the UGC for Sh. V.P.Arya, since however the
respondent No.1/University has stated this on affidavit, I would accept
the same, and if this averment is proved to be false for any reason the
appropriate authority of University including the deponent of the affidavit
would be liable for consequences in law.
7. Finally, it needs to be brought on record that even as per the
list giving the higher pay scale relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure
P-5, page 20 to the writ petition, earlier pre revised pay scale of a person
which was Rs.2,200-75-2,800-100-4,000/- has now pursuant to the
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission increased to Rs.8,000-
275-13,500/-. Admittedly the petitioner is already getting this scale of
pay. Therefore, once the petitioner is already getting its scale of pay,
albeit pursuant to a Career Advancement Scheme, yet, if the object of
Fifth Pay Commission is to grant a higher pay scale to persons similarly
situated as the petitioner to a pay scale of Rs.8,000-275-13,500/-, and
which the petitioner is already getting, then in such a case, UGC is very
much within its right to issue directions that the higher pay scale as
claimed by the persons who are in the non-academic staff including the
petitioner need not be granted a higher pay scale.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH 14, 2013
ak
