AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner herein is seeking for the benefit of advance increments on acquisition of Ph.D. His service details show that he was first appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in St. Berchman''s College, Changanacherry on 30/06/1995 and from there he was relieved on 16/06/1996 to join the Pavanatma College and he joined there on 17/06/1996 itself. Both the appointments have been approved by the University.
He was granted placement as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 30/06/2001 and the University has approved it as per Ext.P1. He acquired Ph.D in Commerce on 31/05/2004 as evident from Ext.P2 certificate.
According to the petitioner, as per G.O.(P).No.171/99/H.Edn., dated 21/12/1999 at para.6.19 therein, a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D degree in her/his service career. In tune with the said clause, the petitioner claimed the incentive, which was granted by the Manager as evident from Ext.P3 proceedings and later he forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Education for release of the benefits. In Ext.P4, it was communicated to him that as far as Lecturers who obtained Ph.D after commencement of service, they will get two advance increments only when they are placed in the Selection Grade and, therefore, two advance increments cannot be sanctioned now. This order is under attack in the writ petition. The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P1 Judgment of this Court.
In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the stand taken is that the petitioner is eligible for two advance increments only when he moves to Selection Grade. Ext.R2(b) is a clarification issued by the Government as per G.O.(P).No.44/2001/H.Edn., dated 29/03/2001. Reliance is placed on para.5 of the same. In fact, paras.3, 4 and 6 of the said Government Order reads as follows:
Teachers holding both M. Phil and Ph.D at the time of their entry in service are entitled to 4 advance increments.
The incentives specified in para.6.16 to 6.18 of the Government order dated 21/12/1999 are not eligible simultaneously.
A teacher is not simultaneously eligible for the incentives as stated in para. 6.18 and 6.19
Therefore, a person will not be simultaneously be eligible for the incentives as stated in para.6.18 and 6.19. It is also indicated that the benefit under 6.19 cannot be denied. The relevant sentence in para.5 of the Ext.R2(b) that "but the teachers who got Ph.D subsequently and who hadn''t got the benefit earlier will be eligible for 2 advance increments when he/she moves into selection Grade/Reader", is not in tune with the scheme framed by the U.G.C as well by the Government in G.O.(P).No.171/99/H.Edn., dated 21/12/1999. A reading of paras.6.16 to 6.19 of Government Order dated 21/12/1999 will show that different stages are provided for grant of the benefit. Para.6.16 provides for grant of four and two advance increments to persons who hold Ph.D and M. Phil degrees, respectively at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. Para.6.17 will apply to teachers with M. Phil, who acquired Ph.D within two years of recruitment. Paras.6.18 and 6.19 are independent. Merely because of the operation of para.6.18, it cannot be said that the petitioner will not be eligible for the benefit of para.6.19 which is the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P5 Judgment also. In para.2 of the said Judgment, after referring to para.6.19 of the Government Order it has been stated thus:
There is no dispute that the petitioners obtained their Ph.D degree while they were working as Selection Grade Lecturers with pay as Lecturer Selection Grade and they have been granted their higher grade also. But that will not stand in the way of the petitioners getting their original increments since any teacher in service is eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires Ph.D degree irrespective of the time or stage of acquisition of the Ph.D degree.
I respectfully agree with the same.
Therefore, it is not as if that the petitioner will be eligible for the benefit only when he moves to the Selection Grade and, hence, Ext.P4 is quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has already held in the Judgment in W.P.(C).No.33095/2005 that the benefit cannot be withdrawn when a person moves to Selection Grade. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has already moved to the Selection Grade. In that view of the matter, appropriate orders will be passed, if not already done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the due benefits will be released to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.