Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.20 18:10:35 +0530 2025:CGHC:22121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2770 of 2024 Order Reserved on 11.03.2025 Order Passed on 20.05.2025 1 - Dr. Smt. Sunanda Marawi W/o Shri Manoj Markam Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Professor (Hindi), Government E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science College, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal, Government E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science College, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For State/Respondent/s
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 12.05.2022, issued by the respondent No.1 by which the representation of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale has been rejected. Earlier the petitioner has filed WPS No.1452 of 2022 in which vide order dated 04.03,2022, this Court has passed following orders : “2. Be that as it may, petitioner is at liberty to file fresh representation before the respondents No.2 & 3/competent authority alongwith copy of this order for grant of Senior Grade Pay/Selection Grade Pay and also Grade Pay of Rs.9000/- & 10,000/- and, in turn, the respondents No.2 & 3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide petitioner's said representation, if preferred, in accordance with law on its own merit by passing a reasoned and speaking order preferably within four weeks from the date of production of said representation alongwith copy of this order.
Decision
3. With aforesaid observation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 3 3. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred a representation before the concerned authority, however, the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.05.2022, as such the petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief/s: “10.1. To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant : a) selection grade pay w.e.f. 2005 b) revised pay of Rs.9000/- w.e.f. 2008; and c) further revised pay of Rs.10000/- w.e.f. 2011 d) release all the consequential benefits including the arrears with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 10.4. Cost of the petition may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. The petitioner has obtained post graduation degree in Hindi and has also obtained Ph.D. in the Hindi subject. She was initially appointed as Assistant Professor in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 28.11.1996, as such, she joined her duties on 14.12.1996 and since then she is discharging her duties in the said capacity. The State Government has passed orders in 4 respect of extension of benefit of senior grade pay dated 30.12.2004 fixed on 14.12.2002 and selection grade pay dated 17.07.2012 fixed on 14.12.2007. The petitioner was also granted revised pay scale vide order dated 11.10.1999, from pay scale Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 to Rs.8000-275-13500 w.e.f 01.01.1996.(Annexure P/5). The petitioner was awarded PhD degree in the year 2003 and pursuant to the guidelines issued by the UGC, she was required to be given reives pay scale of Rs.37,400 to 67,000/- plus academic grade pay of Rs.9,000/- will be entitled for academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. As per guidelines of the UGC, after completion of 3 years of service on revised pay scale of Rs.37,400 - 67,000/- plus academic grade pay of Rs.9,000/- the concerned professor will be entitled for academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/-, if the assistant Professor is having PhD qualification. Since the petitioner was having PhD qualification, as such, she is claiming aforesaid pay-scale from the year 2005 instead of 14.12.2007. Earlier for the same grievance the petitioner has filed a petition bearing number WPS No.1452 of 2022 in which this Hon,ble Court vide its order dated 04.03.2022 has directed the petitioner to move a representation raising all her grievances and intrun the authorities are directed to consider the representation and to pass an appropriate order by redressing the grievance of the petitioner. In compliance of the same the petitioner has moved an application raising all her grievances, however, vide impugned order dated 12.05.2022, the said 5 representation has been rejected stating that the petitioner is not entitled to get grade pay of Rs.10,000/- from the year 2005. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get revised pay of Rs.9,000/- from the year 2008 and further completion of three years, the petitioner is also entitled to receive revised pay of Rs.10,000/- from the year 2011 which is evident from Annexure P/1, however, the same has not been granted to the petitioner as such, she has filed this petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after awarding of PhD qualification in the year 2003 and pursuant to guideline issued by UGC, the petitioner is entitled to get revised pay scale of Rs.37,400/- to 67,000/- plus academic pay of Rs.9000/- on completion of three years of service. Since she was receiving pay scale as well as academic pay of Rs.9000/-, as such, after awarding of PhD qualification, she is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- per month on the part of having PhD qualification. By not granting academic pay of Rs.10,000/- after getting PhD qualification, the respondent authorities are committing illegality. The order impugned is not in accordance with law and is purse illegal, as such liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round, which the petitioner has filed this petition, detail order has been passed by the learned co-ordinate Bench, however, without assigning any cogent reason his representation has been rejected. 6 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that subject to due verification and scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest within a period of 60 days. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 8. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of State of MP and others vs. Satyavrata Taran reported in (2012) 2 SCC 83 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter and thereafter the matter was listed before the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court as Writ Appeal No 599 of 2008 and the Division Bench has decided the matter on 7-2-2012 by remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed State of Madhya Pradesh to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of senior scale/selection grade after treating the services rendered by the petitioners from the initial date of their appointment as emergency appointees as a regular appointment for the purpose of conferring the benefit of senior pay scale and section grade. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been appointed by following due process of selection and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and this Court has already been concluded the issue and also considering the fact that similarly situated Assistant 7 Professors who have been appointed on emergency basis, have been granted the granted benefit of selection grade by adding of the past services, the petitioners are also entitled to get same benefit and their past services deserve to be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade only. The issue that similarly situated employees are entitled to get similar relief, has been well settled by Hon’ble Supreme in catena of decisions out of which latest one is in case of Rushi Bhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine Sc 641, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 17 as under:- “17. .........Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent- Corporation should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation before the courts, as was held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others: “22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the 8 same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence”.” 10. In view of the above discussion and considering the entire facts of the case, material on record, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and denial of selection grade by the respondents is set aside. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner after adding her past service appointed on emergency basis for grant of selection grade and if the petitioner fulfill all the requisite conditions which are required for grant of selection grade as per the policy/circular 9 issued by the State Government as well as University Grants Commission from time to time within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that adding of past services shall be considered for grant of selection grade and pension only. It will not be counted for grant of seniority. It is further directed that after adding the past service, if the petitioner is found eligible for grant of selection grade, the difference of arrears be paid to her within further period of two months from the date of taking final decision over grant of selection grade. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi