Dr. Pramod Bhartiya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3885 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. Pramod Bhartiya vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 28 April, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                              2025:UHC:3134-DB
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

         Writ Petition (S/B) No.515 of 2015

Dr. Pramod Bhartiya                            ...Petitioner

                            Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others               ... Respondents

Presence:
    Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner.
    Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for State of
    Uttarakhand.

Coram:    Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
          Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

Petitioner is challenging order dated 16.09.2015 passed by Director Higher Education, Uttarakhand whereby his claim for pay protection was rejected on the ground that in view of Government Order dated 18.12.2006, he is not entitled for pay protection. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are extracted below:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to keep it in abeyance the Government Order dated 16.09.2015 till pendency of the present writ petition and summon the case from the office of respondent no.2 and decide it as per the law. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refer the matter before the respondent no.1 as per the clause 2 of Government Order dated 18.12.2006 and further prayed to direct the respondent no.2 to withdraw the order dated 16.09.2015 at his level and refer the case before the respondent no.1 for suitable orders as per the provisions of statues and Government Order dated 20.06.1989 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) and circular dated 27.04.2011

2025:UHC:3134-DB (Annexure No.11 colly to the writ petition). iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 to issue the pay protection to the petitioner as he was getting of Rs.37,400-67,000+ A.G.P. of Rs.10,000/- in the affiliate college of J.R.S. College Jamalpur of Tilak Manzhi Bhagalpur University, Bihar with its arrears since due date."

2. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie, Dehradun on the recommendation of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, vide order dated 27.08.1996. Municipal Post Graduate College is a privately managed college, which is getting financial aid from State Government. While serving as Lecturer at Mussoorie; petitioner applied for appointment as Principal of JRS College, Jamalpur in State of Bihar pursuant to an advertisement issued by the competent authority. After being selected, petitioner was appointed as Principal of JRS College, Jamalpur Bihar, which was affiliated to Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur. His appointment in JRS College, Jamalpur (Bihar) was subsequently cancelled by the University vide order dated 05.04.2013. The cancellation order is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Perusal thereof reveals that Hon'ble Patna High Court had quashed the entire selection, consequently, services of 13 teachers including the petitioner were terminated.

3. According to petitioner he joined as Principal in JRS College, Jamalpur after taking special leave from Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie and his lien was retained there, therefore he resumed duties in the college at Mussoorie, Dehradun on 20.04.2013. According to the petitioner, he was getting salary in the

2025:UHC:3134-DB scale of Rs.37400-6700 Academic Grade Pay Rs.10,000/- while serving as Principal JRS College, Jamalpur Bihar, where he served for about four and half years, therefore, he was entitled to protection of his pay as per the Government policy, after resuming duties in the earlier college at Mussoorie. In other words, he wanted the salary of Principal while serving as Lecturer.

4. Petitioner made a representation stating that he is entitled to Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- as per last pay certificate issued by JRS College, Jamalupur, Bihar but he is being paid only Rs.9,000/- as Academic Grade Pay, which is not proper and he requested for Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/-. Date of his appointment in JRS College, Jamalpur Bihar was mentioned in the representation as 20.10.2008 and it was further stated that he had sought permission from Committee of Management of Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie for applying for the post in State of Bihar. In para 3 of the representation, petitioner admitted that all appointments made in State of Bihar pursuant to selection held in terms of advertisement no.2 of 2007 were cancelled pursuant to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court, therefore, he had to leave JRS College, Jamalpur Bihar and there was no other reason for his coming back to the college at Mussoorie. The representation made by petitioner was rejected by Director by relying on Government Order dated 18.12.2006, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Governments Orders issued from time to time, petitioner

2025:UHC:3134-DB was entitled for pay protection, therefore, Director Higher Education was not justified in rejecting his claim for pay protection.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that after State reorganization, Government of Uttarakhand has framed a policy to grant pay protection to teachers serving in colleges affiliated to a University within the State only if the concerned teacher was earlier employed in some other college affiliated with a State University within Uttarakhand State. He submits that since petitioner served in a affiliated college in State of Bihar, therefore, Director, Higher Education rightly rejected the representation made by petitioner. Learned State counsel has drawn our attention to the Government Order dated 18.12.2006, which is on record as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said Government Order reveals that benefit of pay protection can be given to a teacher serving in a college affiliated to a University within Uttarakhand State subject to certain conditions e.g.:-

i. The concerned teacher should have been appointed in an equivalent post and equivalent pay scale as per Rules.

ii. The concerned teacher obtained permission from the Principal/Committee of Management of the college where he was serving for seeking appointment in some other college.

iii. There are no extra ordinary circumstances for the concerned teacher for quitting service from earlier college.

2025:UHC:3134-DB

7. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner do not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 18.12.2006 as the post to which petitioner was appointed was not equivalent to the post held by him in Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie. He submits that benefit of Government Order dated 18.12.2006 is available only when a teacher joins some other college within Uttarakhand State, while petitioner accepted employment in another State. He submits that petitioner was appointed as Principal in State of Bihar where he was getting Academic Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in petitioner's representation, while as per his own showing, he was getting Academic Grade Pay of Rs.9,000/- as per the last certificate issued to him by the College at Mussoorie. Thus, learned State counsel submits that petitioner do not meet the conditions of the Government Order dated 18.12.2006.

He further submits that after appointment as Principal, petitioner served in State of Bihar for more than four and half years, therefore, it is not known as to under what circumstances he was permitted to resume duties in Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie. Learned State counsel further submits that entire selection held pursuant to advertisement issued by Tilka Manjhi, Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur was quashed by Hon'ble Patna High Court and appointment of petitioner was cancelled, therefore, as a corollary to this, petitioner's appointment as Principal became void-ab- initio. Thus, he submits that petitioner cannot now claim any benefit based on his appointment as Principal, which was found to be illegal by Hon'ble Patna High Court.

2025:UHC:3134-DB

8. He thus submits that claim for pay protection by petitioner, based on appointment, which is non-est in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court, was rightly rejected by the Director Higher Education. Learned State counsel further submits that the Government policy relied by petitioner is for the benefit of teachers serving in Degree/Post Graduate Colleges, who migrate from one college to another within the State and the Government policy provides that whatever salary they were getting while serving in the previous institution will be given to them upon appointment in the institution where they are subsequently appointed. He submits that case of the petitioner is unusual and not covered by the Government policy. He submits that petitioner accepted appointment in State of Bihar where he was offered appointment on a higher post of Principal, however his appointment as Principal were cancelled in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court, therefore, his coming back to the earlier college at Mussoorie and resuming duties there is not covered by the Government policy. He submits that petitioner was permitted to resume duties by his earlier college at Mussoorie at the same pay scale, which he was getting before leaving for State of Bihar, which was correct thing to do as petitioner could not have been given a pay scale higher than his counterparts serving as Lecturer in Municipal Post Graduate College, Mussoorie, as it would have caused heart burning to them. He further submits that since petitioner's appointment as Principal became non-est after cancellation by the University of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur, therefore, the claim made by petitioner for pay protection is misconceived.

2025:UHC:3134-DB

9. This Court find substance in the submission made by learned State counsel. The Government Order relied upon by petitioner is not for the benefit to persons like petitioner, who accept employment in a college outside the State. It is not meant to protect pay of teachers, who accept employment elsewhere and after cancellation of their appointment, come back to their original institution, where they were earlier serving. Even otherwise also petitioner's appointment as Principal was cancelled as process of selection pursuant to which he was appointed, was found by Hon'ble Patna High Court to be flawed. Therefore, reliance by petitioner upon the order of his appointment as Principal, JRS College, Jamalpur, Bihar was misplaced. The Director, Higher Education was, therefore, justified in rejecting the representation.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the Government Order dated 20.06.1989 and 10.01.1996. These Government Orders do not apply as Government of Uttarakhand changed the policy after State Reorganization.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 17:07:25 +05'30'