Dr. Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

By the Court.--The petitioner is at present Reader in Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh, which is a Government-aided Institution. He was initially appointed on 15.3.1990 as a Lecturer in B.Ed, in Post Graduate Research Sansthan, Trivendram (Kerala) and worked there till 17.12.1996. Thereafter, on 18.12.1996 he was given appointment as Lecturer in Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh (respondent No. 3) after due selection by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The petitioner contested his claim for seniority, as, according to him, his service should have been counted from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1990, which benefit he was given only after he filed a Writ Petition No. 17418 of 2000, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 30.4.2001. The dispute in the present writ petition is now with regard to grant of advance increments to the petitioner.

On 16.2.1999 Government Order was issued, and as per paragraph 4 of Annexure "2'' to the said G.O., the petitioner was entitled to two advance increments as he had M.Phil, degree at the time of recruitment as Lecturer. The said benefit was given to the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2002, which was with effect from the date the petitioner joined as Lecturer in the College of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner thereafter acquired Doctorate (Ph. D) on 13.11.2002. In terms of the Government Order dated 16.2.1999, the petitioner claims to be entitled to the benefit of two further advance increments after he acquired Ph.D. during his service career. A recommendation in this regard was made by the Principal of the College, which was not for the petitioner alone but for 17 other Lecturers also. While making such recommendations, on 4.10.2004 the Principal of the College informed the Director of Education that the petitioner had completed his Ph.D. on 13.11.2002, and as such, he would be entitled to the benefit of two further advance increments under the Government Order dated 16.2.1999. A reminder in this regard was given by the Principal of the College on 13.7.2006. However, the Director, vide his order dated 25.7.2007 rejected the claim of the petitioner by merely stating that the petitioner would not be entitled to two further advance increments, as the same would not be in accordance with the Government Order. Challenging the said order dated 25th July, 2007, this writ petition has been filed. Further prayer has been made for a direction commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant two advance increments w.e.f. 13.11.2002, as per the Government Orders dated 16.2.2099, 1.12.1999 and 17.1.2004, issued by the State Government.

We have heard Shri Sudeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

Specific case of the petitioner is that he would be entitled to the benefit of paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 16.2.1999 (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition). For convenience, the relevant paragraph 4 of the Government Order is being quoted below.

Incentives for Ph.D/M.Phil.

(i). Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil, degree respectively at the time of recruitment as Lecturers.

(ii). One increment will be admissible to those teachers with M.Phil, who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment.

(iii). A lecturer with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when he moves into Selection Grade as Reader.

(iv). A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. Degree in his service career.

What is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of sub para (i) of paragraph 4, the petitioner was given the benefit of two advance increments, as at the time of recruitment as Lecturer, he held M.Phil degree. It is submitted that in terms of sub para (iv) of paragraph 4, since during his service career he had, on 13.11.2002, acquired Ph.D. degree, he would further be entitled to two more advance increments. It is submitted that in the subsequent Government Orders dated 1.12.1999 and 17.1.2004 (both of which have clarified the earlier Government Order dated 16.2.1999), the case of the petitioner for grant of two further advance increments is strengthened. It is also submitted that by the impugned order dated 25th July, 2007 the claim of the petitioner has been denied without assigning any reason, by merely saying that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the Government Order, even without specifying as to which Government Order was considered and why the case of the petitioner was not found covered by the same.

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that as per the scheme of the Government, a Lecturer cannot twice be granted benefit of the advance increments in his career, and as he was M.Phil, at the time of recruitment and had already been given two advance increments from the date of his recruitment, the petitioner cannot be given further two advance increments for having acquired Ph.D.

The Government Order dated 1.12.1999, which clarifies the earlier G.O. dated 16.2.2009, is noteworthy in this regard. The relevant paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Government Order, on which the learned counsel places reliance, are quoted below:

The other clarificatory Government Order dated 17th January, 2001 is also relevant for the purpose of this case, paragraph 3 of which is quoted below:

In the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid clarificatory Government Order, the benefit of advance increments cannot be given to the petitioner twice, and once he had already been given the benefit at the time of recruitment, as he was M.Phil., he after having acquired Ph.D. during his service career, would not be entitled to the benefit of sub para (iv) of paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 16.2.1999.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of two further advance increments vide order dated 25.7.2007 is wholly unjustified.

The purpose of grant of advance increments to Lecturers/Teachers, who have specialized degree of M.Phil, and Ph.D., is to give incentive to those who are Ph.D,/M.Phil. The present is not a case where the petitioner has twice been granted the benefit of being Ph.D. Had the petitioner got the benefit of four advance increments as per sub para (i) of paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 16.2.1999, i.e., if he was M.Phil and Ph.D. at the time of recruitment, then it could be said that if the petitioner had again obtained Ph.D. degree, during his service career for the second time, then he would not be entitled to the benefit of sub para (iv) of paragraph 4 of the Government Order.

From the perusal of the clarificatory Government Orders dated 1.12.1999 and 17.1.2004, what we notice is that a person cannot twice be given the benefit of Ph.D. It does not say that if the person has once been given the benefit of M.Phil, at the time of recruitment and acquired Ph.D. subsequently, he would not be entitled to the said benefit thereafter. As such, even though the petitioner may have been given two advance increments at the time of recruitment on the basis that he was M.Phil., the same would not preclude the petitioner from the benefit of the two further advance increments in terms of sub para (iv) of paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 16.2.1999 on having obtained Ph.D. degree during his service career. The purpose of the incentives for acquiring higher degrees, which is essential for Teachers, would be defeated if such benefit is denied merely on technicalities.

The intention of the Government was clearly in favour of teachers acquiring higher degrees while in service also. If the said benefit, as in the case of the petitioner, was not to be given, the paragraph 4 (iv) would become redundant and need not have been included. The very purpose of the Government Order is to give incentives to teachers acquiring further degrees. It is only for this reason that it has been provided that during the service career, the Teachers and Lecturers may further study and acquire higher degrees, including Ph.D., for which, an incentive of two advance increments is to be given.

It is thus clear that if a Lecturer/ Teacher had Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment, he would be entitled to four advance increments, and only two advance increments, if he is M.Phil; and further two increments, if he acquires Ph.D. while in service. Meaning thereby, the intention is absolutely clear that the Teachers should be rewarded for further studies and acquiring further degrees, and denial of the same would be totally unjustified and against the very purpose of the Government Order. The issuance of the Government Order is within the ambit of beneficial legislation and the said Government Order should be interpreted in a manner so that it advances the purpose and not restricts. Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.7.2007 is quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to give the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner from the date he has acquired Ph.D. degree while in service, i.e., 13.11.2002. The benefit by way of re fixation of his salary shall be given to the petitioner within three months and the arrears of the difference of salary shall be given to him within six months from today.