Madras High Court
The Madurai Kamaraj University vs A.R.Nagarajan on 22 October, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.A.(MD)No.1488 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 20.09.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.(MD)No.1488 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10638 of 2018
1.The Madurai Kamaraj University,
represented by the Registrar,
Madurai – 625 021.
2.The Madurai Kamaraj University Constituent College,
represented by its Principal,
Andipatti – 625 512, Theni District. ... Appellants
vs
1.A.R.Nagarajan
2.The University Grants Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110 002. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 passed in W.P(MD)No.14523 of
2012.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1488 of 2018
For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy
For R1 :Mr.C.Karthick
for Mr.S.Rajasekar
For R2 :Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
The 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P(MD)No.14523 of 2012 have filed
the present Writ Appeal aggrieved by the direction issued by a learned
Single Judge in the Writ Petition, by order dated 12.02.2018.
2.The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.14523 of 2012 had been filed by
the first respondent, who was a Guest Lecturer at Madurai Kamaraj
University Constituent College at Theni, in the nature of a Mandamus
seeking a direction against the respondents in the Writ Petition to implement
the University Grant Commission's guideline No.F.10-1/2009(PS) dated
February 2010 and to refix the Honorarium for him in the post of Guest
Lecturer at Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) per hour with a
maximum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) per month
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and pay the same with arrears with effect from 01.01.2010 within a
stipulated time. The first respondent in the Writ Petition was the University
Grants Commission (UGC).
3.The learned Single Judge while examining the Writ Petition had
passed a very cryptic order, which is as follows:
“The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the salary
fixed for the 'Guest Lecturer' by the University Grants
Commission has not been paid to the writ petitioner.
2.The petitioner states that the third respondent has not
followed the University Grants Commission regulation in relation
to the payment of wages to the Guest Lecturer. It is needless to
state that the 'Guest Lecturers' appointed are eligible to get the
Honorarium as fixed under the University Grants Commission
regulation in force. Thus, the respondents are bound pay the
Honorarium as applicable to the 'Guest Lecturer' under the
guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission.
3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that this
Court also earlier considered the very same issue and passed
order on 22.08.2012 in W.P(MD)No.4468 of 2012. However, now
five years lapsed and this Court is of an opinion that the
grievances in respect of payment of the Honorarium as per the
University Grants Commission regulation is bound to be followed
by the respondents.
4.With these observations, this writ petition stands
disposed of. No costs.”
4.Questioning the above order, the 2nd and 3rd respondents, namely,
the Madurai Kamaraj University and Madurai Kamaraj University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Constituent College at Theni where the Writ Petitioner discharged duty as
Guest Lecturer have filed the present Writ Appeal.
5.It had been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the appellants that neither the State Legislation nor
the Syndicate of Madurai Kamaraj University had adopted the University
Grants Commission's guidelines for the scheme of appointment/honorarium
on Guest/Part Time Teachers as notified in Ref.No.F.10-1/2009(PS) issued
in February 2010. It was therefore contended that the said guidelines are
not binding on the appellants/University. It had also been stated by the
learned Additional Advocate General that the reliance placed by the learned
Single Judge on the earlier order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4468 of
2012, which was disposed on 22.08.2012 was erroneous, since the order
therein had been reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A(MD)No.205 of 2013 by order dated 22.02.2013. It was also contended
that the Writ Petitioner was engaged only on ad-hoc and temporary basis for
taking up teaching assignment in the Electronic and Communication subject
classes for B.Sc. (Physics) degree course and was paid Rs.125/- per hour
subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.It was also contended that the Writ Petitioner was not appointed to
any sanctioned post. It was stated that unless and until the State
Government adopts and implements the same, the University Grants
Commission's guidelines are not applicable to the University and
Constituent College, since they come under the purview of the State
Legislature.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the University Grants
Commission however argued that the guidelines of the University Grants
Commission are applicable to the second appellant College, namely,
Madurai Kamaraj University Constituent College and that the said College
is duty bound to follow the guidelines and provide monthly salary
accordingly to the Writ Petitioner. It was stated that taking note of the
plight of the Guest Lecturers, who were paid a miserly amount, the
University Grants Commission had come forward with the revised
guidelines in February 2010. These guidelines had been communicated to
the Registrars of all Universities and to the State Educational Secretaries
and it had been specifically stated that the guidelines would come into effect
from 01.01.2010. It was also stated that in Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8144 of 2007 and W.P.No.37099 of 2007, a learned Single Judge of the
Principal Seat had held that the Colleges are bound to comply with the
conditions as laid down by the University Grants Commission and payment
of salary should be equivalent to the scale of pay of the University Grants
Commission and it was therefore contended that the obligation to pay
honorarium in accordance with the revised guidelines cannot be denied.
8.The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/first respondent in the
Writ Appeal pointed out that the Writ Petitioner had been appointed after
due process and that the appointment was made in accordance with the
order of the Vice-Chancellor of the Madurai Kamaraj University after
conducting interview. The learned Counsel pointed out the communication
issued by the second appellant College to the first appellant/Madurai
Kamaraj University seeking approval of the selected candidates including
the Writ Petitioner as part-time Lecturers. It had therefore been contended
that since the appointment had been done through due process, the
appellants cannot deny payment of honorarium, as directed by the
University Grants Commission. It was also contended that there would be
no financial burden on the second appellant College, since the University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Grants Commission would reimburse the payment of honorarium. It was
stated that the first appellant University should abide by the guidelines of
the University Grants Commission.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General however questioned the
very appointment of the Writ Petitioner and claimed that he was not
appointed in the same manner as regular Teachers are appointed by two
separate expert panels and therefore, questioned the very claim made by the
Writ Petitioner.
10.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
11.The Writ Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition in the nature of a
Mandamus seeking a direction against the appellants to follow the
guidelines of the University Grants Commission relating to payment of
honorarium to Guest Lecturers. The Writ Petitioner had been appointed as a
Guest Lecturer to teach B.Sc. (Physics) degree students in the subject of
Electronic and Communication. Recognising his appointment, his services
as Guest Lecturer had actually been utilised by the second appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
University College and he had also been paid honorarium.
12.The Writ Petitioner claims that honorarium should have been paid
in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission in
Ref.No.F.10-1/2009(PS) issued in February 2010 which had been
communicated to all the Universities with a direction that it should be
followed. The scheme is that the honorarium should be initially paid to the
Guest Lecturers and thereafter, when a bill is raised, it would be reimbursed
by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, we are of the firm
opinion that it does not hold in the mouth of the appellants that they are not
obliged to pay the honorarium as directed by the University Grants
Commission. They are bound by the direction of the University Grants
Commission. If they refuse to do so, then they would invite derecognition
by the University Grants Commission. There is no financial outflow on the
part of the appellants.
13.The arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate
General questioning the very appointment of the Writ Petitioner cannot be
countenanced, since the appellants had actually been paid honorarium
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recognising the process under which he was appointed and recognising him
as a Guest Lecturer duly authorised to impart lectures and receive
honorarium. The only issue is about the scale of payment of honorarium, not
the locus of the Writ Petitioner to seek payment of honorarium. The scale
of pay had been determined by the University Grants Commission. The
appellants are bound to follow the said guidelines.
14.The learned Additional Advocate General had placed reliance on a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A(MD)No.205 of 2013 by
which the order relied on by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.4468
of 2012 had been set aside.
15.A careful perusal of the order in the Writ Appeal would indicate
that the Division Bench had passed the said order only on the ground that
the Writ Petitioner therein had not been appointed with respect to a
sanctioned post. In the instant case, the distinguishing factor is that the Writ
Petitioner had been appointed after following due process by a panel of
experts after interview had been conducted in accordance with the
directions of the Vice-Chancellor of the Madurai Kamaraj University dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30.07.2009. A note had been put up which had also been approved. There
are no other records produced by the appellants questioning the very
appointment of the Writ Petitioner herein. Therefore, the order of the
Division Bench relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General is
certainly distinguishable on facts.
16.The learned Counsel for the University Grants Commission had
stated that the guidelines of the University Grants Commission are binding
on the appellant University/College. The Writ Petitioner was appointed
after due process and his appointment had been recognised and he had also
been paid honorarium and now only seeks honorarium in accordance with
the revised guidelines of the University Grants Commission. We hold that
the objection of the appellants does not withstand the scrutiny of this Court.
If they want to deny the relief to the Writ Petitioner, then they must take a
stand that they are not bound by the University Grants Commission and are
an independent and separate entity, which stand if they take, would only
invite derecognition. That would affect the appellant University on a larger
sphere. It is also seen that the second appellant will have to effect the
payment and raise a bill with the University Grants Commission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.In view of all these facts, we are of the firm opinion that the
directions of the learned Single Judge will have to be necessarily complied
with by the appellants. There cannot be denial of payment of honorarium to
the Writ Petitioner in accordance with the guidelines fixed by the University
Grants Commission.
18.In view of the above reasonings, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. We issue a direction that the honorarium as determined by the
University Grants Commission's guideline in Ref.No.F.10-1/2009(PS)
should be paid in accordance with the said guidelines with effect from
01.10.2010 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. No costs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[C.V.K., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
22.10.2024
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
