Dr. Deo Prakash and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

We have heard Col. (Retd.) R.A. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State Respondents. Shri U.P. Singh appears for the Respondent-University.

The Petitioners were initially appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Lecturer in Pathology in the years 1965 and 1962, respectively in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of UP through UP Public Service Commission, and were posted in Veterinary College, Mathura. By Government Order dated 6.3.1976 the Veterinary College, Mathura and UP Institute of Agriculture, Kanpur were merged in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. The employees of the Veterinary College, Mathura were transferred on deputation to the University until they exercise the option of the services in the University. By the Government Order dated 19.7.1983 the services of those, who were not willing to accept the absorption, were dispensed with. The absorption was made with a condition that the service conditions of the Government employees will in no manner be altered to their detriment.

The Petitioners were absorbed on 8.5.1985 and 15.11.1983 respectively as Associate Professors w.e.f. 1.9.1978 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 upto 31.12.1985, which became Rs. 3700-5700 from 1.1.1986 . On completing ten years they were granted personal/pay promotion as Professors in the pay scales of Rs. 4500-5700, which were revised to Rs. 16400-22400 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Petitioners retired as Professors on 3.10.2001 and 7.5.2001 respectively. They were reemployed upto 30.6.2002 and 30.6.2001 respectively.

By Government Order dated 30.6.1986 the State Government directed change of service conditions including pay scales and the recovery of excess amount paid to them. In Writ Petition No. 10970 of 1986, filed by similarly situate employees, the High Court by its judgment dated 29.4.1993 set aside the Government Order dated 30.6.1986 on the ground of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and violation of principle of natural justice. The SLP against the judgment was dismissed. It is stated by Col. R.A. Pandey that those, who had filed the writ petitions, were given benefits of service conditions without restrictions placed by the Government Order dated 30.6.1986. Col. (Retd.) R.A. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners were not aware of the judgment and therefore they filed the Writ Petition No. 7398 of 1995, for same reliefs which was allowed on 2.1.2003 by this Court on the ground that the earlier writ petitions raising same issues and for quashing Government order dated 30.6.1986 were allowed, and against which the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

When the judgment was not given effect the Petitioners filed a Contempt Petition No. 1822 of 2003 for enforcement of the order, namely for award of increments on the UGC pay scales given to them as Associate Professors; and thereafter Professor. The State Government produced a Government Order dated 1.7.1997 in which after giving the back ground of the litigation, which ended upto Supreme Court and by which the Government Order dated 30.6.1986 was quashed, it was directed that the Governor has, in view of the judgments of the Court, cancelled the Government order dated 30.6.1996. In para-5 of the Government order dated 1.7.1997 it was reiterated that the UGC pay scales will be applicable to the teachers and employees, who were merged in the University, but that increments in the revised UGC pay scales will be given to only those Assistant Professors and Associate Professors, who hold Ph. Degrees. Similar terms and conditions were applicable to the teachers appointed and serving in the University in terms of the recommendations of the UGC.

By this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the Government Order dated 1.7.1997, and for giving them the arrears of pay after providing increments and calculating the benefits of increments on the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, without any insistence on obtaining Ph.D which the Petitioners did not have, even upto the date of retirement.

We have considered the submissions of counsel appearing for Petitioners, and find that in the judgment of this Court in Dr. S.B. Singh and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. Writ Petition No. 10970 of 1986 decided on 29.4.1993 the question of grant of increments in the UGC pay scales was not an issue. The Court had considered whether the pay scales of the Petitioners were adversely affected to their detriment, and the recovery of the excess amount paid to them. The Government Order dated 30.6.1986 was quashed by the Court on the reasoning given in the judgment that the service conditions of the Petitioners could not be changed to their detriment, after they were given an option to be absorbed in the services of the University.

The question of changing the service conditions to the detriment of the Petitioners and the consequent recovery of difference of pay, which they received as Associate Professor is different than the question of award of increments on the condition imposed by U.G.C. of obtaining Ph.D degree.

The Petitioners did not join the University with any such protection of service condition that they will not be bound by the terms and conditions of the applicability of the UGC pay scales. Their service conditions as Government servants did not include the applicability of UGC pay scales to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor and the conditions attached to it. The condition imposed by U.G.C. was uniformly applicable across the board to all University and College teachers. If they had continued under the old pay scales as government servants, they could not have got the benefit of the UGC pay scales, which were higher than the pay scales applicable to them as teachers in the Veterinary College. Further there is no material to show that the teachers of Government Colleges were given increments in UGC pay scales, if these scales were made applicable to them.

The Petitioners were entitled to the increments on the posts to which they were successfully promoted unless they had obtained Ph.D degrees under the terms and conditions put by the UGC applicable uniform ally to all the teachers. The prayers for increment is by way of the claim of entitlement which the Petitioners did not have either as the Government servants or as the teachers of the University.

The writ petition is dismissed.