High Court · 2025 on 01 Aug 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the the respondents – University.

2. Based on the request made by the respondent no.1 – Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad, the Chairman, University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the UGC”) has approved vide letter dated 04.09.2000 to open a department of Biotechnology of M.Sc.,0 Biotechnology Teaching programme at Allahabad University. According to the said approval letter, the UGC has approved in principle two faculty staffs i.e. one Reader and one Lecturer. Further, the UGC will provide grant facilities to the said staffs for the period of five years. In fact, as per proposal, the said posts were sanctioned as programme posts. Based on the said approval letter, the University has started process of selection of faculty members for the department of biotechnology and accordingly issued an advertisement no.4 of 2000 inviting application forms for the post of one Professor, one Reader and one Lecturer.

3. The petitioner having requisite qualifications, while discharging her assignment in the department of Biotechnology, Government of India, Post Doctoral Fellowship at J.C. Bose Institute, Kolkata, made an application for the post of Lecturer in the department of biotechnology pursuant to the said notification. She got invitation letter for interview on

01.02.2001 which was scheduled on 03.03.2001. Based on the performance in the said interview, she was selected and issued appointment letter on 05.03.2001 as a temporary lecturer by placing under probation for a period of one year. Thereafter, she was discharging her duties with utmost satisfaction without any interruption.

4. As per approval letter dated 04.09.2000 of the UGC, the 2nd respondent has requested the State Government for grant of the approval to the said post for running the department of biotechnology vide letter dated 18.05.2001. The said request is pending consideration before the State Government. The post of one Reader and one Lecturer was filled up by the Executive Council of the University vide its resolution no.163 dated 07.06.2000. In fact, a reminder was also sent vide letter dated

07.02.2002. The State Government has also sought clarification from the University vide letter dated 13.05.2002 with regard to the substantive vacancies existing in the University so as to adjust certain vacancies in the department of biotechnology. Vide letter dated 31.08.2003, again the State Government has directed the University to carry out exercise regarding calculation of number of the total substantive vacancies in the University.

5. Though the petitioner was appointed and is discharging her duties as lecturer and worked very hard and sincerely for the sake of teaching and research orientation in the department, she has also been able to bring eight research projects from Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India and the International Funding Agencies. In 2009, the petitioner also has credit to guide research scholars under her supervision. Accordingly, six students have been registered with her.

6. Subsequently, when the University started its transition from the State University to the Central University Status, no attention was paid to the Status of petitioner and other employees of the department of biotechnology. While the University has advertised once again the same 2 of 8 posts in the department of biotechnology. The petitioner applied for the higher post such as Reader and Professor. She was called for interview for the both posts. The respondents offered post of Lecturer as there was no extra post of Reader. Accordingly, once again the respondents- University issued appointment letter on 21.01.2009 and the same was approved by the Executive Counsel meetings held on 21.01.2009. Though the petitioner has resisted but the Selection Committee has promised to protect past services. In fact after rejoining, the University has granted advanced increment on 16/30.5.2012 as per the order of the UGC dated

24.12.1998 in favour of the Petitioner which was effective from

21.01.2009 by indicating that the University does not want to count past services of the petitioner.

7. Based on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee/Selection Committee, Executive Counsel in it’s meeting dated 22.06.2013 has promoted the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Stage-II). Based on the sincere request made by the petitioner to protect her basic pay by implementing 6th Pay Commission vide representations dated 20.02.2009 and 17.12.2009, the University asked for past services records of the teachers of the University vide letter dated 15.01.2010 and accordingly the petitioner has replied vide letter dated 25.11.2010. But surprisingly, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.10.2016. Assailing the same, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned rejection order was passed by the respondents on the following grounds: (i) The petitioner was appointed under 5 years plan on project/programme of UGC. 3 of 8 (ii) The appointment of the petitioner was neither recommended by the Selection Committee nor approved by the Executive Council. (iii) As the petitioner was selected in 2009 and her appointment was approved by the Executive Council, she joined on

21.01.2009. Hence, it is fresh appointment. (iv) Services of the petitioner from 18.03.2001 onwards up to January 2009 was temporary/contract basis and only admissible pay and allowances may be regulated by finance wing of the University as per provisions of the FR-17, FR-31(a) and FR-39.

9. The above said grounds are contrary to records. To support his submission, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the approval letter granted by UGC in September 2000, according to which approval in principle by UGC is with regard to programme posts and not plan posts. The post of one Reader and one Lecturer for M.Sc Bio-technology will be lapsed being these posts are not filled up with the concurrence of the State Government or the Allahabad University. Further it has been clarified that UGC assistance for staffs will be provided for 5 years from the date of approval letter. Thereafter, recurring liability will be either borne by the State Government or by the Allahabad University. In view of the said approval, it is clearly mentioned that posts are not plan post and in fact the UGC has clarified to give financial support for five years and after that, liability will be either borne by the State Government or by the the Allahabad University. Hence, rejection on the ground of plan / programme posts is contrary to the said letter.

10. Further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the letter addressed by the University on 15.05.2001 to the UGC clarifying that the Allahabad University has opened new centre in the name of centre of biotechnology and post of one Reader and one 4 of 8 Lecturer in the centre of biotechnology has been filled up by the Executive Council of the University vide its resolution no.163 dated

07.06.2000. According to the said request, it clearly demonstrates that appointment of the petitioner was placed before the Executive Council and the same was resolved by resolution No.163 dated 07.06.2000. Hence, the second ground for rejection stating that the appointment was neither recommended by the Selection Committee nor approved by the Executive Council is also contrary to records.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court about the order passed by the University on 30.05.2012 with regard to grant of advance increment as per UGC order dated 24.12.1998. In the said order, the University has granted advance increments to 14 teaching staffs. In that, the petitioner was also granted 4 increments. In fact, the case of the petitioner was also considered by the University and she was promoted as Assistant Professor (Phase II) vide order dated 22.06.2013.

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that considering the request made by certain teaching staffs, a committee was constituted. The Executive Council vide resolution no.8/30 dated

27.01.2015 resolved the issue with regard to protection of salaries of the petitioner and other similar cases of the teachers of the University wherein it was clearly held that appointment of the petitioner and Dr. Shanthy Sundaram was held against substantive post of Lecturer and Reader. The respondents have also considered payment of increment and hence, they held that the petitioner and Dr. Shanthy Sundaram are deserve to be approved for protection of pay for services rendered by them earlier in the University of Allahabad. But surprisingly, the respondents have passed the impugned order without considering the said recommendation of the Committee which was constituted only for the said purpose. 5 of 8

13. Further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that pay protection will be done as per FR-17, FR-31(a) and FR-39. According to FR-17, the date from which a person is recruited shall commence to draw the pay and first appointment shall be determined by general or special orders of the Authority by whom he is appointed. In fact, according to that, first appointment of the petitioner in 2001 was absolutely approved by the Executive Counsel in its resolution no.163 dated 07.06.2000. As far as FR-31(a) and FR-39 are concerned, the same are not applicable to the present case.

14. Hence, rejection of the claim by the respondent vide impugned order is non-application of mind and is contrary to records. In fact, the case of the petitioner was considered and advance increments were also granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.05.2012 and further by resolution no.8/30 dated 27.01.2015, committee was constituted particularly for grant of pay protection to the petitioner and one Dr. Shanthy Sundaram, according to which, the said committee has considered the entire records and recommended for pay protection of the petitioner from the initial appointment. The respondents have not considered the said recommendations and also not considered advance increments granted to the petitioner on 16.05.2012. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality, contrary to records and without application of mind.

15. Further, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in identical situation, the respondents have considered the case of Dr. Shanty Sundaram and pay has been protected. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to set aside and the case of the petitioner may also be considered for pay protection from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 2001 up to 02.12.2012 and all monetary benefits may also be released to her. 6 of 8

16. Though the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and denied liability and entitlement of the petitioner from pay protection only on the ground that the post is programme post and the State Government has not granted financial concurrence, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the pay protection from the initial appointment.

17. Further, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the University has submitted based on the supplementary affidavit that the respondents have considered the case of one Dr. Shanthy Sundaram for grant of salary protection, the same was rejected by the respondents vide order

08.02.2021 stating that as per Rule 13 of the CCS (revised pay) Rules 2008, no pay protection would be given in case appointment was temporary.

18. Considering the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the university and on perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that ground taken by the respondents for rejection cannot be sustainable based on the records. In fact, as per letter of the University, it clearly says that appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Executive Council and the UGC approval letter also clarifies that sanctioned post is not plan or programme post. The UGC has approved the financial assistance for 5 years and after that, it would be either borne by the State Government or by the University so the respondents have granted approval for establishment of the centre of biotechnolgy as well as two posts; one Reader and one lecturer. Hence, it cannot be said that these posts are plan post or programme post. Further, in the impugned order, the respondents have also failed to take note of the orders passed on 16.05.2012 granting four advance increments and also recommendations made by the committee constituted vide resolution no.8/30 dated 27.01.2015. In the said circumstances as the impugned order is contrary to records, the same is accordingly set aside. 7 of 8

19. Further by considering the request letter of the University dated

15.05.2001 and also recommendation made by the committee constituted vide resolution No.8/30 dated 27.01.2015, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to pay protection and release arrears of the salaries. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 01.08.2025 (Donadi Ramesh, J.) RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 8 of 8