AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three Original Applications before us, i.e., OA Nos. 3058/2016, 3059/2016 and 3071/2016, we propose to dispose them through this common order.
With the consent of the parties, OA No.3058/2016 was taken as the lead case wherein the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f. 01.01.2001 has been turned down by the respondents by placing reliance on AICTE Notification dated 20.09.1989. The relief prayed for in the aforesaid OA is as under:-
“(a) Quash and set aside the order dated 22.07.2016 (mentioned in para 1 of the OA), whereby the valid claim of the Applicant for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) was turned down by the respondents illegally and arbitrarily;
(b) Direct the respondents to grant Lecturer (Selection Grade) to the Applicant from the due date (i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2001), in terms of AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999, with all consequential benefits viz. arrears of salary, compound interest @ 18% p.a. on arrears of salary, PB-4 w.e.f. 01.01.2004 with arrears, promotion seniority etc.;
(c) Award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the respondents. And/or
(d) Pass any further order, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Drawing Instructor in Polytechnics with the Department of Training and Technical Education [DTTE]. On the basis of recommendations of the Madan Committee, teaching staff structure of Polytechnics had been revised and 87 posts of Junior Lecturer, Senior Drawing Instructor, Demonstrator, Studio Assistant etc. abolished/kept in abeyance and in lieu thereof an equal number of posts of Lecturer and Officers had been created.
3.1 Out of 87, 63 posts had been re-classified as that of Lecturer in pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 to be the lower level/rank of the teaching staff. Teaching staff were to be given upgraded posts provided they possessed the minimum educational and teaching qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer. However, those who were not possessing the requisite qualifications, were granted a one-time relaxation to acquire the same within a span of eight years vide orders dated 25.09.1987 and 09.10.1991.
3.2 The applicant, who as per the extant recruitment rules fulfilled the eligibility criterion for the post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering), was upgraded as Lecturer on ad hoc basis vide order dated 12.12.1988. On the recommendations of UPSC, services of the applicant had been regularized w.e.f. 28.05.1990 vide order dated 10.04.1992. Subsequently, as per the advice of UPSC received vide letter dated 12.03.2012 keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble High Court in GNCTD & Ors. Vs. Usha Anand & Ors [WP(C) No.12292-93/2005], the respondents, vide order dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure 5-A) regularized the services of the applicant along with others as Lecturer (Mechanical Engineer) w.e.f. 12.12.1988 instead of 28.05.1990.
3.3 AICTE issued Circular dated 20.09.1989 whereby in the teaching cadre, Lecturers were required to be placed in the Senior Scale on completion of eight years’ service and thereafter in the Selection Grade on completion of another eight years’ service subject to suitability being determined. It was further clarified vide letter dated 10.09.1993 issued by AICTE that Lecturers recruited before 20.09.1989 would be exempted from revised qualifications prescribed and the said clarification/recommendation had been accepted and implemented by GNCTD vide orders dated 08.01.1997 and 25.11.1997. Accordingly, the respondents considered the name of the applicant along with other identically situated persons for grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) in pay scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000 [pre-revised] and on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the applicant was granted Lecturer (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 28.05.1998, vide order dated 13.08.1999, which was later antedated to 28.05.1996.
3.4 AICTE issued yet another Circular dated 30.12.1999 whereby Lecturers were required to be placed in Senior Scale on completion of six years’ service and further on rendering another five years’ service to be placed in Selection Grade subject to suitability being determined. Clause 8(3) of the said Circular stipulates as under:-
“8.3 Lecturer (Selection Grade):
A Senior Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) who has a Master’s degree and 5 years experience as senior Lecturer of Lecturer (Senior Scale), and has consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports will be eligible to be placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade), subject to be recommendation of the Selection Committee.”
Insofar as requisite qualifications are concerned, Clauses 5(2)(i) and 5(3) of the aforesaid Circular clearly provide as under:-
“5(2) Where qualifications and experience prescribed for a post in this pay revisions are higher than the qualifications and experience prescribed by ACITE for the post prior to this revision-
(i) The revised qualifications and experience will be required only for fresh appointees to that post and will not be insisted on for existing incumbents working on those positions.
5(3) Teachers already in service prior to January 1, 1996 and who at the time of their recruitment possessed only a second class in their degree at Bachelor’s or Master’s Level (but met all the qualification requirement prescribed by ACIET at the time of their recruitment) shall be exempted from the requirement of First Class for the Degree they had at the time of their recruitment.”
3.5 The aforesaid Circular dated 30.12.1999 (supra) is applicable to all Teachers/Lecturers working in Poly-technics and the same had been accepted by GNCTD vide its Cabinet decision dated 23.09.2003 and subsequent order dated 12.12.2003. Meanwhile, AICTE vide letter dated 10.09.2003 again clarified that Teachers/ Lecturers, who had been recruited prior to 01.01.1996 would be governed by existing recruitment rules and recommended relaxation in qualification for such Teachers to consider them for Career Advancement Scheme [CAS] in the grade of Lecturer, i.e., from Lecturer to Senior Grade/Scale and from Senior Grade/Scale to Selection Grade, which was adopted by the respondents subsequent to their cabinet decision on 12.12.2003.
3.6 The applicant, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2004. Consequent upon recommendations of AICTE conveyed vide order dated 30.12.1999, the respondents, on acceptance of cabinet decision dated 23.09.2003 and further order dated 12.12.2003 regarding pay scale and other service conditions and in compliance of the decision of Hon’ble High Court in Usha (supra), date of grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) was correctly preponed from 28.05.1996 to 01.01.1996 vide order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure A-12). Hence, the applicant after rendering five years’ regular service in the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) became eligible to be granted Selection Grade w.e.f 01.01.2001.
3.7 When no steps were taken by the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the applicant, he approached the Tribunal by way of OA No.922/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2016 directing the respondents to consider his claim for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) in terms of the relevant circular and in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks. The respondents did not pay any heed to the Tribunal’s order and the applicant had to move a Contempt Petition No.316/2016. However, during pendency of the aforesaid Contempt Petition, the respondents issued order dated 22.07.2016 rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) erroneously placing reliance on AICTE Circular dated 20.09.1989 and failed to appreciate that they had already applied AICTE’s circular dated 30.12.1999 in the case of the applicant while granting/preponing the date of grant of Lecturer (Senior Scale) vide order dated 29.12.2011. Therefore, as per Clauses 5(2)(3) and 8(3) of AICTE’s notification dated 30.12.1999 as also the decision of Hon’ble High Court in Usha’s case (supra), it was incumbent upon the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2001 after rendering five years’ of regular service in the grade of Lecturer (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
3.8 The applicant has been discriminated by the respondents in not granting him the Selection Grade whereas the said benefit has been granted to one similarly situated employee, namely, Smt. Asha Kumar w.e.f. 09.08.2001, whose date of grant of Senior Scale had also been preponed from 09.08.1998 to 09.08.1996 and counted five years’ regular service in Selection Scale w.e.f. 09.08.1996 itself. She had also been granted all consequential benefits vide order dated 28.08.2015 but the applicant has been left high and dry. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking the relief quoted above.
Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant stating that he was appointed as Drawing Instructor (Group-C). Consequent upon acceptance of the Madaan Committee’s recommendation, the applicant was upgraded to the post of Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.12.1988 and subsequently regularized w.e.f. 28.05.1990 by UPSC in accordance with the rules. Since the applicant is governed by the AICTE guidelines issued in 1989, he was granted all the upgradations admissible to him under the post of Lecturer, subject to fulfillment of minimum eligibility criterion prescribed by AICTE as per guidelines issued in the year 1989.
4.1 Para 8.1(b) of the said guidelines provides that “promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to the teachers (Diploma Levl) subjected to assessment and selection would be made by selection committee”. The applicant, who was regularized as Lecturer w.e.f. 28.05.1990 by UPSC and had completed eight years’ service on 28.05.1998 for Lecturer (Senior Scale) and further eight years’ regular service to be eligible for grant of Lecturer (Selection Grade) which had been completed by him in the year 2006 only and superannuated before due date of grant of the said Selection Grade. Hence, he would not be exempted from the requirement of revised qualifications prescribed by AICTE vide its circulars dated 20.09.1989 and, therefore, his claim that he was eligible to be granted the Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2001 is neither correct nor tenable. Moreover, in an identical case V.K. Verma & Ors. [OA No.1587/2009], this Tribunal held that “respondents would consider granting selection grade to the applicants with effect from the date they complete 16 years of service and the restriction of possession revised educational qualifications would not apply to him”.
4.2 As per AICTE Notification dated 1999, a Senior Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) who possesses a Master’s Degree and five years’ experience as Senior Lecturer/ Lecturer (Senior Scale) and has consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports would be eligible to be placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade) subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The applicant does not possess the Post Graduate Degree in Engineering and, hence, is not eligible for grant of Selection Grade. Accordingly, the OA needs to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
The applicant filed a rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the contentions of the respondents and has reiterated the averments made in the OA.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court delivered in an identical matter titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. L.K. Bahl & Anr. [WP(C) No.3414/2017 decided on 15.11.2019] wherein the limited question pertained to entitlement of respondent no.1 to Selection Grade, as has been involved in the case in hand. However, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the aforesaid judgment in L.K. Bahl (supra) is not final as the findings on merit of the view of Delhi High Court and the question of law has been kept open to be addressed in an appropriate case as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. L.K. Bahl & Anr. [SLP (Civil) Diary No.19833/2020 decided on 12.07.2021]. He also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati in Sri Bhabesh Goswami & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. [WP(C) No.578 of 2013] arguing that this judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the OA deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard Sh. Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant, Sh. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings as well as citations relied upon by learned counsel for both the parties.
The question of ‘entitlement of Selection Grade to Lecturers’, as involved in the present OA, has been extensively examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in L.K. Bahl (supra) taking into account the relevant Circulars/Guidelines issued by AICTE from time to time. Hence, we deem it fit to quote the relevant excerpts of the said judgment:-
“6. The facts in brief are that Respondent No.1 joined the DTTE as Demonstrator in the year 1972. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Ad Hoc) on 12th December, 1988. The services of Respondent No.1 were regularised by the Union Public Service Commission (Respondent No.2) by an order dated 28th May, 1990.
On 8th January, 1997 an order was issued by the DTTE on the topic of implementation of CAS for teachers in Government Polytechnics. Para (III) is relevant in this context and reads thus:
“III All the existing staff who are eligible for grant of revised scales/benefits of Career Advancement are exempted from application of revised qualifications vide AICTE circular dated 20.09.1989 and such qualifications shall be applicable to new entrants joining after 20.09.1989.”
In this context, it is required to be noted that the guidelines of the All India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’) for CAS for Lecturers in Polytechnics, issued on 20th September, 1989 provided for senior scale of Rs.3000-5000 for a Lecturer after the completion of 8 years of regular service in the grade of Lecturer (Rs.700-1300, before1st January, 1986, and Rs.2200-4000 after 4th Central Pay Commission [‘CPC’]). It provided for selection grade of Rs.3700-5700 on completion of 8 years service in the senior scale. Selection grade was to be given through a process of selection by selection committee, set up by the appointing authority. Even under the circular dated 20th September, 1989 revised qualifications i.e. a Master’s degree, and experience were prescribed for the posts of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer (Selection Grade) and Principal. It is in this context that the above order dated 8th January, 1997 exempting „existing staff‟ from application of the revised qualifications so prescribed, becomes significant. This is also reflected in a further clarificatory circular of 10th September, 1993, where in para (v) of the note below sub-clause (2) of clause II it was provided thus:
“(v) The revised scales of pay circulated by the AICTE vide circular dated 20.09.89 are applicable with effect from 1.1.86 to all the existing teaching staff such as Principal, Heads of Department, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers who were appointed by the Competent authority. All the existing staff who are eligible for grant of revised scales/benefits of Career Advancement, are exempted from the application of revised qualifications of AICTE circular dated 20.09.98 and such qualifications shall be applicable to new entrants recruited after 20.09.1989. (emphasis added).”
It is admitted by the DTTE that its order dated 8th January, 1997 was in fact based on the aforementioned circular dated 10th September, 1993 of the AICTE.
Following the recommendations of the 5th CPC, the AICTE brought out fresh guidelines in 1999 which were circulated on 30th December, 1999. The following were the terms of clause 8.3 of these guidelines:
“A Senior Lecturer / Lecturer (Senior Scale) who has a Master's degree and 5 years experience as senior Lecturer of Lecturer (Senior Scale), and has consistently satisfactory performance appraisal reports will be eligible to be placed as Lecturer (Selection Grade), subject to the recommendation of the Selection Committee.”
The AICTE on 10th September, 2003 issued ‘clarification’ on certain issues pertaining to pay scales and service condition for teachers of degree/ diploma level technical institutions. It was clarified that the teachers who have been recruited prior to 1st January, 1996 should be governed by the existing RRs. In other words, it was decided to relax the requirement of a Master’s degree qualification in case of teachers recruited prior to 1st January, 1996 for the purposes of considering them for the CAS.
Respondent No.1 retired on 13th November, 2009. The admitted position is that he did not have a Master’s degree qualification. However, it is the case of Respondent No.1 that in terms of the above clarifications issued by the AICTE, since he was appointed as Lecturer on 12th December, 1988 and was also regularised from that date, he was not required to possess a Master’s degree qualification for being eligible to be granted the Senior Selection Grade.
It is also the case of Respondent No.1 that many of those appointed along with him as Lecturer (Ad Hoc) by the same order dated 12th December, 1988, and who did not have a Master’s degree, were nevertheless granted selection grade.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 it is stated that in terms of information obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act‟) from the DTTE, it was plain that it had granted selection grade to 6 persons with effect from 12th December, 1988 without insisting on the revised qualification in terms of the AICTE guidelines. A copy of the letter dated 20th July, 2017 sent to him by the DTTE pursuant to his application under the RTI Act has been enclosed as Annexure „A‟ to his counter-affidavit.
On 10th July, 2015 another order issued by the DTTE (Annexure ‘A3’) showed that the DTTE had granted selection grade with effect from 12th December, 2004 (i.e. on completion of 16 years of service after regular appointment) to 6 employees; it implemented the decision of the CAT in OA No.3696 of 2012 (Ashok Kumar Chopra v. GNCTD) and OA No.2291 of 2012 (R.K. Bhagi v. GNCTD). In both cases the DTTE did not insist on the persons having to possess a Master’s degree.
Respondent No.1 has also referred to the cases of Mr. Ashok Kr. Chopra, Mr. D.N.K. Gauri and Mr. Virendra Anand, whose pay was fixed as on 1st January, 2006 at Rs. 27010 + Rs. 8000 equal to Rs. 35010.
Mr. Shiva Sambyal, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, points out that an order was issued by the GNCTD on 17th May, 2017, by way of implementation of the impugned order of the CAT whereby his services were regularized with effect from 12th December, 1988 instead of 28 th May, 1990. The senior scale granted to him was advanced from 28th May, 1998 to 12th December, 1996 on completion of 8 years of service. He accordingly submits that once his services as Lecturer have been regularised on 12th December, 1988 and senior scale has also been granted on completion of 8 years with effect from 12th December, 1996, there is no reason to deny him the selection grade on completion of 16 years with effect from 12th December, 2004.
Mr. Sambyal also points out that DTTE did not disclose to this Court that it had granted selection grade to other employees who had not even approached to CAT like Mr. V. K. Sarin and Mr. Heera Singh. He states that on 13th July, 2016 the DTTE granted selection grade to 21 more teachers copies of which have been obtained by Respondent No.1 under the RTI. In particular, he refers to the following paragraph in the minutes dated 4th November, 2015 as under:
“It has been decided that the teachers who have been recruited prior to 01.01.1996 should be governed by the existing RRs. So, the committee recommends relaxation of qualification for such teachers to consider them for CAS in the grade of Lecturers i.e. from Lecturer to Senior Grade and from Senior grade to Selection grade ...”
Mr. Sambyal points out how the DTTE divided the lecturers, who were to be considered for grant of selection grade into the categories, one of which of those lecturers appointed prior to 1st January, 1996. In this context, the minutes recorded, as under:
“further AICTE vide letter dated 10.09.2003 clarified that the teachers who have been recruited prior to 01.01.1996 should be governed by the existing RRs. So, the committee recommends relaxation of qualification for such teachers to consider them for CAS in the grade of Lecturers i.e. from Lecturer to Senior Grade and from Senior grade to Selection grade and also for those who were promoted before the implementation of revised AICTE pay scales and service conditions.”
Thus, DTTE applied the same clarification of the AICTE and granted selection grade to diploma holders like Savita Sharma, Virender Kumar, Heera Singh and V. K. Sarin, none of whom possessed a Master‟s degree and this fact was noted by the committee in a separate column.
Respondent No.1 has placed on record a copy of the decision dated 30th April, 2010 of the CAT in OA Nos.1586 of 2009, 1587 of 2009 and 1669 of 2009. One of the issues is discussed in the said judgment was whether Lecturers in Polytechnics under GNCTD, who were appointed on or before 19th September, 1989, would be eligible for being granted selection grade without having a revised academic qualification prescribed by the AICTE‟s circular dated 28th September, 1989. The CAT concluded, after referring to the above circulars, that the Applicant before it would be eligible for grant of selection grade after 8 years of regular service in the senior scale or after the completion of 16 years of service. The said order of the CAT was challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.21435-436/2005, in which the GNCTD stated on affidavit that it had decided to implement the orders of the CAT within three months.
Mr. Sambyal submits that 20 other employees were given the same benefit, even when they had not approached the CAT. It is pointed out that in all of the other cases, including OA Nos. 1501/2004 (Usha Anand v. GNCTD) and OA No.2291/2012, the GNCTD never raised the issue of the revised qualifications, as relevant for the grant of selection grade to those appointed prior to 1 st January, 1996.
In response to the above submissions, it is submitted by Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that the judgment of the High Court of Assam in W.P.(C) No.578/2013 (Sri Bhabesh Goswami v. State of Assam) clearly holds that the clarification dated 10th September, 2003 of the AICTE would not obviate the necessity of a Lecturer (Senior Scale) possessing a Master’s Degree for being granted the selection grade.
The Court has perused the said judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court in Sri Bhabesh Goswami (supra) carefully. It first comes to the conclusion, and perhaps incorrectly, that Clause 5 of the AICTE Guidelines would not come to the aid of those seeking selection grade. It also notes that under clause 8.3 the requirement for movement under the CAS is a Master’s degree. Para 21 of the said judgment reads as under:
“21. Clause 8.3 of the notification dated 30.12.1999, amongst others, requires a Master's Degree in respect of Senior Lecturer/Lecturer (Senior Scale) for movement under CAS. It is to be noted that First Class Bachelor's Degree is an educational qualification prescribed for Lecturer under notification dated 30.12.1999, but such a Lecturer does not become entitled to be moved as Lecturer (Selection Grade) under CAS in terms of Clause 8.3 unless he/she has a Master's Degree apart from other requirements. Therefore, for placement at Lecturer (Selection Grade) under CAS, the entry level qualification as per existing recruitment rules prior to 01.01.1996 will not suffice. The arguments advanced by Mr. Choudhury that for movement to Lecturer (Selection Grade) for Lecturers recruited prior to 01.01.1996, the only requirement is length of service as Lecturer (Senior Scale), does not commend for acceptance, because the AICTE notification dated 30.12.1999 read with the notification dated 10.09.2003, on which the petitioners rely on, only gives relaxation in entry level qualification for the purpose of consideration under CAS. Therefore, unless a Lecturer (Senior Scale) has a Master's Degree, he/she will not be eligible for consideration under CAS. It is noticed that some of the petitioners in WP(C) 578/2013 had obtained Master's Degree after they were appointed as Lecturer.”
The Court notes that the said judgment of the Guwahati High Court misconstrues the actual decision of the AICTE to the extent of holding that the notification provided for „relaxation in entry level qualification for the purposes of consideration under CAS.‟ It actually applies to all teachers recruited prior to 1st January, 1996 as well as to those ‘who were promoted before the implementation of the revised AICTE pay scales and service condition.’ In other words, it does not mean that a Lecturer (Senior Scale) cannot be granted the selection grade unless he has a Master’s degree. There is no occasion for such a narrow construction to be placed on the circular. This becomes particularly clear when viewed in the context of the earlier relaxation in terms of exempting the applicability of the 1989 guidelines, in respect of which clarification was issued on 10th September, 1993 to the effect of exempting the existing incumbents of having to possess the revised qualification. Consequently, this Court is not persuaded that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court in Bhabesh Goswami (supra) lays down the correct position in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 6th August, 2010 in W.P. (C) 10640 of 2009 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Suresh Chand Vashist), where in the context of the requirement of educational qualifications for Librarians and Physical Education Personnel, the same AICTE guidelines for CAS were applied along with the clarifications issued by the AICTE and it was held that those already appointed prior to 1st January, 1996 would not have to acquire the revised qualifications to be eligible for the CAS.
To the same effect is the decision dated 20th October, 2015 of the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil W.P. No.897 of 2013 (Arti Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan), which was upheld by the Division Bench of that Court by a judgment dated 28th February, 2018 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.221 of 2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Arti Bhargava). This 2019 judgment in fact goes a step further in holding that the revised guidelines could not have the retrospective effect of taking away any rights of the employees who became members of the service in terms of the existing rules. Indeed, the Court is of the view that the decision of this Court in Suresh Chand Vashist (supra) and that of the Rajasthan High Court in Arti Bhargava (supra) support the case of Respondent No.1.
Further, with the Petitioners having granted the selection grade to many of the batchmates of Respondent No.1 who were promoted along with him on 12th December 1988, and even to those junior to him without insisting on the post-graduate degree qualification there appears to be no good reason to subject him to discrimination on that score.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the CAT dated 3rd March, 2016, insofar as it requires the Petitioners to grant Respondent No.1 the benefits granted to all others in terms of the CAT’s order in OA No.1501 of 2004 ‘with all consequential benefits’ does not call for any interference.
In particular, it is directed that there would be no occasion to deny Respondent No.1 the benefit of the CAS. The order granting him the selection grade will no longer, therefore, be kept in abeyance. Any further consequential benefits that are owed to Respondent No.1 will also not be denied to him, thus obviating the need for him having to litigate for those benefits.”
8.1 Having gone through the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court in L.K. Bahl (supra), we are of the considered opinion that since the respondents have granted the benefit of Selection Grade to many of the similarly situated employees, who were promoted along with the applicant without insisting on the post-graduate degree qualification, there appears to be no good reason to deny the same benefit to the applicant.
8.2 In totality of the facts and circumstances brought out above, we quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure A-1). Since the applicant had been granted Lecturer (Senior Scale) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide order dated 29.11.2011, we hold that he is entitled to the benefit of Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2004, after reckoning eight years’ of regular service in Senior Scale granted w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
8.3 Since the applicant unfortunately expired during the pendency of this OA and his legal heirs have been brought on record in terms of Tribunal’s order dated 18.10.2023 passed in MA No.3237/2023, we hereby direct the respondents to re-fix the pay and revise his pension/family pension, after granting him Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and pay arrears thereof to his legal heirs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
We dispose of OA No.3058/2016 in terms of the above directions. The other two clubbed matters, i.e., OA No.3059/2016 and OA No.3071/2016 also stand disposed of in the same terms.
No order as to costs.