High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 9595/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P N Gosw ami, learned Standing Counsel, Education, appearing for the Respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Education Department in Bi kali College, Dhoopdhara, when the college was at the venture stage. The colleg e was brought under system of grants-in-aid in the year 1992. When the college was brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, the lecturers possessing University Grant Commission (UGC) norms, were offered the scale of pay of Rs. 2, 200-4,000/-. The petitioner was not having the UGC norms, as she did not have 5 2.5% marks, required in the Masters Examination. By communication dated 03.04.1992, some college lecturers, who were appo inted as per State Government relaxed norms prior to the implementation of revis ed UGC norms, were retained in service on fixed pay of Rs. 2,200/- plus other al lowances as admissible w.e.f. 01.04.1992 or w.e.f. the date as specified in Anne xure-I thereto subject to the condition that: (i) they must obtain M. Phil Degre e within 3 years w.e.f. 01.04.1992, (ii) they will be allowed to enjoy normal sc ale of pay with incremental benefits only after obtaining M. Phil Degree effecti ve from the date of declaration of result and (iii) it was not to be treated as a general policy and no such case shall be approved without the prior approval o f the Government. This letter dated 03.04.1992 was written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department to the Director of Public Instruction (Higher) Education. It also appears that on 31.10.1992, Government was pleased to approve services of some under-qualified teachers, who were serving against s anctioned post for a period of 3 (three) years continuously or from the date of taking over of the college under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, as the cas e may, enabling them to draw the initial pay (fixed) in the scale of Rs. 2,200-4 ,000/- per month, making it clear that they would be entitled to enjoy the incre mental benefit in the UGC scale of pay after obtaining M.Phil or Ph.D Degree wit hin 8 (eight) years of service. By a communication dated 17.12.1993, the services of 2 (two) lecturers o f Bikali College were provisionally approved in the fixed pay of Rs. 2,200/- per month, on the condition that they will be entitled to enjoy the incremental ben efit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- only after obtaining of M. Phi l/ Ph.D Degree within a period of 8 (eight) years, failing which their services would not be continued. The petitioner has not brought on record the date on which her service w as approved in the fixed pay of Rs. 2,200/-. It appears from Annexure-7 order da ted 13.12.1994 that the service of the petitioner was provisionally approved in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,785-4,200/- per month plus other allowances as admissi ble under the Rules w.e.f. 30.03.1994 against the vacant post sanctioned by an o rder dated 21.01.1993.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had acquired M.Phil Degree from Gauhati University on 08.08.2002 and therefore, she is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- (since revised ) w.e.f. 08.08.2002. Mr. Sarma has also drawn the attention of this Court to An nexure-6 letter dated 30.03.1999 by which the Government decided to approve serv ices of some under-qualified college teachers including the petitioner and one S hri Mahendra Kr. Borgohain in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,785-4,200/- per month. Referring to Annexure-10 letter dated 31.03.2000, Mr. Sarma submits that service s of Mahendra Kr. Borgohain, whose name figured alogwith the petitioner in the l etter dated 30.03.1999 and who is identically placed with the petitioner, was ap proved in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- per month w.e.f. 27.11.1999 i.e., from the date of his obtaining M.Phil Degree. It is in the aforesaid prem ise, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2,200-4,000/- (since revised) from 08.08.2002 and he has been illega lly and arbitrarily deprived of enjoying the said scale of pay. Mr. Goswami, on the other hand, submits that the letter dated 31.10.1992 required obtaining of M. Phil Degree or Ph.D Degree within 8 (eight) years of s ervice and therefore, the petitioner may not have fulfilled the 1st condition of the letter dated 31.10.1992. It is pointed out by him that in view of the lett er dated 21.06.2003 (Annexure-14) written by the Director of Higher Education to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, the is sue is pending consideration and, therefore, this Court may direct the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department to take a decision on the prayer of the petitioner for considering grant of revised UGC scale of pay to the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It would appear from the order dated 21.06.2003 that some opinion was al so offered by the Director of Higher Education regarding entitlement or otherwis e of the petitioner to the grant of UGC scale of pay. Considering the matter in its entirety, though the issue dates back to t he year 2003, it is considered appropriate by this Court to direct the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department to examine the case o f the petitioner in the proper perspective and pass an appropriate order within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of thi s order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Secre tary will ignore the observation of Director of Higher Education, Assam in the l etter dated 21.06.2003 that by submitting a claim directly bypassing her immedia te superiors, the petitioner had violated provisions of Rules governing the fiel d. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the Secretary and also if no order is passed within 2 (two) months from date of receipt of a certi fied copy of this order, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Cour t again.