UGC Pay Scale Cannot Be Denied For Want Of M.Phil/NET/SLET/PhD When Not Mandatory On Regularisation Date: Gauhati High Court Grants Relief To Lecturer
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Robin Phukan allowed a writ petition by a retired college lecturer and directed the State’s higher education authorities to extend the UGC pay scale from the date of his regularisation, rather than from 2009 when the benefit had been granted after he acquired an M.Phil. The dispute arose from the authorities denying retrospective UGC pay-scale benefits on the ground that the lecturer did not possess M.Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D qualifications within the period mentioned in the regularisation terms. The Court held that such qualifications were not mandatory on the date of regularisation and, therefore, the benefit could not be denied on that basis, directing compliance within a fixed timeframe.
The writ petition concerned a lecturer appointed in 1985 in a deficit grant-in-aid college under the Higher Education Department of Assam. His service was regularised in November 1993 pursuant to earlier court directions, subject to conditions requiring acquisition of an M.Phil or Ph.D degree within a stipulated period. Despite regularisation, the authorities granted him the UGC scale of pay only from August 2009, after he acquired an M.Phil degree, while certain similarly placed lecturers were extended the UGC scale from their dates of regularisation.
The petitioner challenged a 2017 government order rejecting his claim for retrospective grant of UGC pay from the date of regularisation. The State authorities justified their decision by referring to UGC norms, eligibility conditions, and the alleged illegality of benefits granted to others. The dispute centred on whether possession of M.Phil/NET/SLET qualifications was mandatory in 1993 and whether the conditions imposed at the time of regularisation were legally sustainable.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment and regularisation preceded the enforcement of State notifications adopting later UGC qualification requirements. It observed that “Since possession of M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification was not a mandatory requirement on 12.11.1993, i.e. the date of regularization of service of the petitioner, then depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the UGC scale of pay from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993, imposing the conditions that the petitioner– (a) will have to obtain M. Phil or Ph. D. degree within 8(eight) years from the date of approval of his appointment; and (b) will not be eligible to draw senior scale of pay/Grade of pay until fulfills the conditions laid down in the letter, to the considered opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same warrants interference of this court.”
While the respondents argued that benefits extended to other lecturers amounted to negative equality, the Court observed that the authorities had not conclusively established that those benefits were wrongly granted. Referring to settled service jurisprudence, the Court stated that “all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly,” and denial of equal treatment would offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court issued a mandamus directing the respondent authorities “to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993.”
It further directed that the exercise of extending the benefit and consequential dues be completed “within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” The Court recorded that the petitioner had already retired on superannuation and directed him to place a certified copy of the order before the authorities within the stipulated time.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Upamanyu, Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department
Case Title: Md. Ohiduz Zaman v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010198752017
Case Number: WP(C) 4151/2017
Bench: Justice Robin Phukan
