M.S. Ginti v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Ors.

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 2013:DHC:1413 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:-

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