Telangana High Court
Dr. B.N.V. Satyanarayana, Hyderabad vs Telangana, State Council Of Higher ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 32364 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Petitioner questions the action of Respondents in
not implementing the Resolution passed by the 3rd Respondent
on 08.03.2007 for payment of salary on par with the Director of
Gurukulams, and instead paying a consolidated pay of
Rs.37,000/- against the entitled Rs.72,848/-.
2. Petitioner, being an M.B.A., LL.B. and Ph.D. in
Business Management, with 16 years of industrial and 13 years
of academic experience, responded to an advertisement issued
by the 1st Respondent - A.P. State Council of Higher Education,
applied for the post of Director and underwent selection
process. However, the then Chairman of the Council appointed
him as Coordinator, 21st Century Gurukulams, by order dated
20.01.2007 with consolidated pay of Rs.8000-16000 treating the
same as equivalent to the starting pay of a Lecturer in the UGC
1996.
While so, the Governing Council of Consortium of
Institutions of Higher Learning, by Resolution dated
08.03.2007, enhanced petitioner's his salary on par with the
Director, 21st Century Gurukulams. By the said Resolution, the
Director's pay was fixed at Rs.25,000/- with free
accommodation and boarding, in parity with the Associate
Professor in UGC Pay Scales of 1996. However, Petitioner was
not provided with these benefits and was entitled to allowances
such as HRA and DA. Thereafter, the Governing Council of
Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning passed Resolution
on 29.02.2012 authorising the Chairman to take a decision for
fixing the pay provided under UGC Pay Scales of 2006 of
Associate Professor without considering the AGP and other
allowances. Despite the Governing Council's resolutions
authorizing parity in pay with the Director's scale, Petitioner
received only Rs.37,000/- as consolidated pay from 01.03.2012.
This was significantly lower than Rs.72,848/- payable under the
UGC 2006 pay scales.
Petitioner therefore, is stated to have submitted
multiple representations, latest being the one dated 31.07.2017,
seeking rectification of pay disparity, however, no action was
taken by Respondents. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 1, upheld the principle
of "equal pay for equal work" and mandated payment of
minimum regular pay scales with DA to temporary employees.
2017 (1) SCC 148
The Respondents' failure to comply with this violates this
precedent.
3. The 1st respondent filed the counter stating that
petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Coordinator for the
21st Century Gurukulams under the Consortium of Institutes of
Higher Learning (CIHL) through proceedings dated 20.01.2007
with a consolidated pay equivalent to the starting pay of a
Lecturer as per UGC Pay Scales of 1996. His salary was revised
to Rs. 37,000/- per month effective from 01.03.2012, pursuant
to proceedings dated 17.05.2012 issued by the Chairman of
CIHL and APSCHE.
Petitioner was compensated at par with Gurukulam
Directors, who were also paid consolidated salaries. Since no
official accommodation was provided, an additional Rs. 2,000/-
was sanctioned as HRA. The terms of appointment for
Gurukulam Directors, as per letter dated 13.09.2007, included
a one-year probationary period followed by a three-year
contractual engagement with consolidated pay. It is stated,
petitioner's pay and benefits were revised periodically and
disbursed from CIHL's account, managed by the Chairman of
TSCHE. During the Governing Council meeting of CIHL held on
29.02.2012, it was resolved to increase petitioner's consolidated
salary to Rs. 37,000/- per month effective from 01.03.2012.
This revision was based on the UGC-2006 Associate Professor
pay scale, excluding AGP and other allowances. Following the
petitioner's request, an additional 50% interim relief over the
existing salary was granted from May 2015, as per proceedings
dated 11.06.2018.
This respondent highlights that despite CIHL's
cessation of operations since 2011, petitioner continued his
contractual engagement and his services were informally
utilized by TSCHE for assignments, including In-charge of RTI
Cell and TFRC, without formal absorption or financial
obligations on the part of TSCHE. Upon attaining
superannuation, petitioner was relieved from duties effective
30th November 2018, as conveyed in letter No.
CIHL/TSCHE/21CG/2018 dated 30th November 2018. The
respondent argues that the petitioner's demand for pay parity
with Associate Professors is untenable, citing Supreme Court
judgments that contract appointees cannot claim regular pay
scales unless appointed to sanctioned posts. Therefore,
petitioner prays for dismissal of Writ Petition, asserting that it
lacks merit both factually and legally.
4. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Mrs. C. Vani Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent Council.
5. There is no dispute that petitioner was appointed as
Coordinator, 21st Century Gurukulams on a consolidated salary
which is equivalent to the starting pay of a lecturer in UGC
1996 Scales of Pay. Subsequently, by Resolution dated
08.03.2007, it is ratified that petitioner is appointed as
Coordinator of 21st Century Gurukualm and he would be paid
salary on par with the Directors of Gurukulam. It is also ratified
that consolidated amount of Rs.23,000/- would be paid as
monthly salary to the Directors apart from free accommodation
and boarding (the above salary is fixed to keep parity with
Associate Professor in the UGC -1996 scales of pay (D A merged)
HRA is not included since accommodation is provided).
Subsequently, by Resolution dated 29.02.2012, it is made clear
that keeping in view the fact that salaries of teachers and other
employees have been revised two years ago and since petitioner
was paid the same fixed amount for the last five years, it is
resolved to increase his salary (fixed p.m.) from March 2012. It
is further resolved that total actual amount to be paid to him
may be decided by the Chairman taking UGC-2006 Associate
Professor's scale of pay as base, however, without considering
AGP and other allowances. Consequently, by proceedings dated
17.05.2012, the Chairman sanctioned revision of monthly
consolidated salary paid to petitioner as Rs.37,000/- per month
with effect from 01.03.2012.
6. Evidently, from the above Resolutions and
proceedings, petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Associate
Professor in UGC 1996 pay scales. Respondents have not stated
as to how he is not entitled for pay scale on par with Associate
Professor as per 2006 and 2016 UGC pay scales. Respondents
have taken the plea that there is no post sanctioned and notified
under the category of Associate Professor, hence petitioner is
not entitled for the scale. As could be seen from the writ
affidavit, it is not the case of petitioner that he was appointed
against the post of Associate Professor. It is his case that
notification was issued to the post of Director, however, he was
appointed as Coordinator and his pay was fixed under UGC pay
scales equivalent to lecturer at the time of appointment and
subsequently, pursuant to the Resolutions dated 08.03.2007
and 29.02.2012, he is entitled to pay scale on par with
Associate Professor as provided under UGC 2006 pay scales and
subsequent revisions. Hence, the question of denying petitioner
the pay provided under UGC 2006 for the post of Associate
Professor does not arise. The 1st respondent, in their counter,
did not meet the said specific point except taking unreasonable
stand with an intention to deny the scale attached to the post of
Associate Professor. In fact, petitioner claimed the starting pay
of Associate Professor, he is entitled for increments based on
length of service and other benefits. Further, during pendency
of Writ Petition, respondents issued order dated 30.11.2008
declaring that petitioner was attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.11.2018 and accordingly, he was relieved
of his duties of Coordinator of CIHL on the afternoon of
30.01.2018. It is to be noticed that age of retirement policy will
be applicable only to the government employees or the
government servants who were appointed on substantive basis.
On the one hand, respondents stated that petitioner was
appointed on contractual basis and on the other, they have
issued the order of superannuation treating him on par with
regular employees which further strengthens the case of
petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that
petitioner is entitled to grant of pay provided to the post of
Associate Professor under UGC Pay sales of 2006 and its
subsequent revision in 2016 with all arrears.
7. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed, directing
respondents to grant pay provided to the post of Associate
Professor under UGC Pay scales of 2006 and its subsequent
revision in 2016 with all arrears after deducting the amounts
already paid to him. No costs.
8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st April 2025
ksld
