Dr.M.A.Shah vs Union Of India And Ors

Sanjeev Kumar, J

The petitioner claims that he joined the National Institute of Technology, Hazratbal Srinagar (hereinafter for short 'NIT') on 20.04.2000 as Assistant Professor on temporary basis. On completion of three years' service, the petitioner was placed on probation for one year w.e.f 20.04.2003 in terms of Order No.200 of 2003 dated 01.11.2003 issued by the Registrar of the NIT. The petitioner claims that he became eligible for promotion/upgradation to the post of Sr. Scale Lecturer w.e.f 01.07.2004, i.e, on completion of three years' experience as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in AGP Rs.6,000/-. He also became entitled to promotion to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f 01.07.2009 under 5th Central Pay Commission Career Advancement Scheme (5th CPC-CAS). The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have granted similar treatment to the juniors of the petitioner but have denied the same to him without assigning any cogent reason.

Petitioner submitted that he during the course of his employment with the respondents had remained abroad w.e.f 05.09.2007 to 02.07.2008 without seeking any formal permission from the competent authority. The petitioner, as is admitted by both the parties, remained unauthorizedly absent from the duty once again from 07.03.2009 to 01.10.2011. The respondents, however condoned the unauthorized absence of the petitioner and permitted him to join. However, the period of absence of the petitioner was treated as leave without pay. Interestingly, the respondents even released the annual increments in favour of the petitioner for the above said period of absence. The petitioner's case was thereafter placed before the Board of Governors for his upgradation as Sr. Scale Assistant Professor and Associate Professor w.e.f.01.07.2004 to 01.07.2009 respectively. The petitioner submits that two interviews of the petitioner were conducted, one on 30.08.2013 for Sr.Scale Assistant Professor and another on 31.08.2013 for Associate Professor but the respondents vide Order No.197 of 2013 dated 18.09.2013 granted financial upgradation to the Sr. Scale Lecturer to Assistant Professor w.e.f 01.07.2008 instead of 01.07.2004, which, as per the petitioner, was in violation of the 5th CPC CAS rules.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (CAT) by filing O.A No.062/00020/2015 and the same was disposed of on 16.12.2015, directing the respondents to consider the pending representation of the petitioner for his financial upgradation of the Sr. pay scale w.e.f 01.07.2004. It is stated by the petitioner that in compliance to the directions of the CAT, respondent no.2 constituted a Faculty's Grievance Committee consisting of five members to discuss the grievance of the petitioner and the Committee held different meetings on various dates. In its meeting held on 30.06.2016, the Grievance Committee recommended the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sr.Scale Assistant Professor w.e.f 01.07.2004 and Associate Professor w.e.f 01.07.2009. It is stated that the decision taken by the Faculty's Grievance Committee has been kept in a sealed cover and has not been opened. The petitioner asserts that till the decision on the fate of the petitioner in light of the recommendations of the Committee is taken, respondents cannot be permitted to fill up the post of Assistant Professor and Association Professor and Professor in the department of Physics in National Institute of Technology in the faculty of Nano Science as has been sought to be done vide Advertisement Notification No.NIT/PD/2018/364 dated 19.01.2018.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon the eligibility criteria laid down for financial upgradation under CAS for the faculty of NIT under 6th CPC from 2010 and has claimed that he had completed the requisite experience of three years in the year 2004 and, therefore, should have been considered for the first upgradation w.e.f. 01.07.2004.

Respondents 2 to 4 have filed the reply and have placed strong reliance on 85th meeting of Board of Governors held on 18.09.2013. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner, because of his absence, could not participate in the interview for first upgradation which was held in December, 2007 as the petitioner at that time was unauthorizedly absent from duty. The petitioner's case was, however, considered and he was found eligible for first financial upgradation w.e.f 01.07.2008. He was given further financial upgradation from the post of Senior Scale Lecturer to Assistant Professor and Associate Professor accordingly. With regard to the recommendations of Selection Committee under 5th and 6th CPC it is contended that the same were not approved with regard to the petitioner on the ground that he was not found eligible for promotion from the recommended dates. It is, however, submitted by the respondents that on the representation of the petitioner and similarly situated other faculty members, regarding their promotion, the Board of Governors of the NIT constituted the Grievance Committee under the Chairmanship of Director NIT Delhi. The Grievance Committee after holding different meetings gave its report which was considered by the Board of Governors on 03.10.2016. The Board of Governors after discussing the report of Grievance committee ordered that the said report be sent to the Ministry of Human Resource Development as it would require approval from the Ministry. The reply from the Ministry is, however, awaited. Respondents have, thus, clarified that the recommendation of the Committee involves about 35 faculty members including petitioner and their cases shall be dealt with once the reply from the Ministry is received.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that with a view to look into the grievance of the petitioner as projected by him in the representation made pursuance to the directions of CAT, the NIT constituted the Grievance Committee to look into the genuineness of the grievance of the petitioner and other faculty members. It further transpires that the Grievance Committee has made certain recommendations which go in favour of the petitioner and few others for pre-dating their financial upgradation to the post of Sr. Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. The respondent-NIT has neither accepted nor rejected the recommendations of the Grievance Committee but has taken up the matter with the Ministry of Human Resource development-respondent no.1 herein. The Ministry is yet to take the decision in the matter. That being so, I hardly see any necessity to determine the issues raised before me with regard to eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner for seeking his first financial upgradation w.e.f 01.07.2004 and the subsequent upgradations from back date. It would thus be appropriate to leave the matter for the consideration of respondent no.1.

Accordingly, without going into the merits of controversy raised and accepting the stand taken in the reply affidavit filed by the NIT, this writ petition is disposed of by directing that the respondent no.1, who has been approached by the NIT Srinagar for taking a decision on the report/recommendations of the Grievance Committee constituted by the Board of Governors for looking into the grievance of the petitioner and other similarly placed faculty members, to take the final decision on the report of the Committee within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon it. The NIT shall take follow up action and pass appropriate orders with regard to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date it receives the orders/approval from the respondent no.1. Needless to say, that the petitioner, if aggrieved of the decision, if any, taken by respondent no.1 and the order passed by the NIT Srinagar in consequence thereof, shall be free to work out his remedy as may be available to him in law.

Disposed of.