Dr. K.G. Jolly (Dead Through LRs) v. Institute of Economic Growth & Ors.

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the order? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the order should be reported in Digest? No O R D E R 12.08.2011

1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, a former faculty member of the Institute of Economic Growth („IEG‟) [Respondent No. 1], seeking a direction to Respondents, i.e., IEG, University of Delhi [Respondent No. 3] and the Union of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, [Respondent NO. 4] to fix the Petitioner‟s pay in terms of the Fundamental Rule 22-C with effect from March and April 1974, and pay him all arrears of pay allowance and increments.

2. The Petitioner joined the IEG in 1959. In 1973 his pay scale was revised from Rs. 375-25-575 to Rs. 650-30-740-35-880-40-900 with effect from 1st 2011:DHC:4130 January 1973 in accordance with the Third Pay Commission („TPC‟) recommendations which were accepted by the IEG. However, the Petitioner drew his salary in the scale of Rs. 350-575 till October 1974 and was paid arrears only up to 28th February 1974. He stated that he had not been paid arrears on account of revision of pay scale from 1st March 1974 to 31st October

1974.

3. According to the Petitioner, he was issued a letter promoting him as Junior Fellow/Lecturer and placing him in the higher post reduced his basic pay from Rs. 525/- to Rs. 520/- with effect from 1st January 1975 without assigning any reason for the same. The Petitioner represented but this yielded no results. Invoking FR 22-C the Petitioner states that his pay should have been ` 750- 1600/- with effect from 1st March 1974 on his promotion from the post of Research Analyst in the scale of ` 650-960/- to the post of Junior Fellow (Research Associate) in the scale of ` 700-1600/-. In April 1984 the Petitioner was promoted as Reader. However the anomaly arising out of the incorrect fixation of pay was adversely affecting the Petitioner. In 1988 four posts in the administrative cadre were upgraded and pay fixation was effected by applying FR 22-C(i). However, the Petitioner was denied any relief. Ultimately, the present writ petition was filed on 27th May 1993.

4. Rule was issued by this Court at the first hearing of the present writ petition on 13th July 1993 “limited to the question of re-fixation of pay of the Petitioner when he was promoted in 1984.”

5. During the pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner expired and was substituted by his legal representatives („LRs‟).

6. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the IEG, a preliminary objection was raised as to laches in the Petitioner preferring the present petition. It was submitted that the Petitioner was seeking to reopen “the financial implications pertaining to the period 1974-75 onwards”. It is then submitted that the recommendations of the TPC were extended by the IEG to both academic and non-academic staff of the IEG with effect from 1st January 1973. In respect of the Population Research Centre („PRC‟) the pay scales and the nomenclature of the posts were rationalised retrospectively with effect from 1st March 1974 as per the staffing pattern prescribed in the letter dated 26th June 1974 of the Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Government of India. The Petitioner was accordingly paid salary in accordance with the rationalised scale with effect from 1st March 1974. Arrears were to be paid on the basis of prerationalised scale only till 28th February 1974. It is stated that the Petitioner was drawing a basic salary of ` 500/- in the pre-rationalized scale of ` 350-25-575 as on 28th February 1974. Following the TPC recommendation, the Petitioner‟s basic pay was fixed in the rationalised scale of ` 400-30-540-40-800 at ` 480 plus ` 20 PP with effect from 1st March 1974 as per the FR 22 (a) (ii) as was done in other cases. The audit instructions explaining the implications of the said FR vis-à-vis the personal pay reads as under: “Audit Instruction No. 2 Regulation of pay of government servant in respect of personal pay under FR 22 (a) (ii) when he earns next increment. When the next increment in the time scale of either the new or the old post falls due, the government servant should draw next increment in the time scale of the new post, and forthwith lose the personal pay and all connections with the time scale of the old post. The personal pay is given to a government servant only for the purpose of initial pay and not at any subsequent stage in the new time scale in which the government servant might draw less pay than he would have drawn had he remained in the old time scale.”

7. It is stated that the FR 22-C was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case as it was not a case of promotion but of rationalization of posts and the scales of pay. Moreover, if it had been a case of promotion to the next higher scale, the post ought to have been advertised; appointment could be only by selection by a duly constituted selection committee and approval of its minutes by the Chairman, Board of Governors. The qualification for the higher post at the relevant time was a good academic record with at least second class in M.A. in the subject with Ph.D., whereas the qualification of the Petitioner at the time of rationalization was M.A. third class. FR 22-C was applied in the case of certain non-academic posts whereas the Petitioner was part of the academic staff.

8. The above submissions have been considered. It does appear that there was rationalization of posts in the IEG following the acceptance of the TPC recommendations. The document enclosed with the counter affidavit of the IEG shows that the Petitioner who was a Research Analyst was, pursuant to the rationalization, designated as Junior Fellow in the pay scale of Rs. 400-40-800- 50-950 with effect from 1st March 1974. It is stated therein that “these grades have since been revised in accordance with the recommendations of the TPC retrospectively.”

9. This Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the IEG in the matter of fixation of pay of the Petitioner. This was not a case of promotion but of rationalization of posts and the scales of pay. Therefore, the FR 22-C would not apply.

10. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.