Mrs. Matrayee vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel appearing for the Institute where the appellant is working.

2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condoantion application is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed. Delay condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. Order on Appeal

4. The contention of the appellant's counsel was that looking into her excellent services, the Committee recommended grant of Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-, but this has been granted only w.e.f. 1.5.2018, whereas it should have been granted w.e.f. August, 2014.

5. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that as per the Norms and Regulations, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit, but looking into her excellent services, she has been given the said benefit. 2 SPLAD No. 462 of 2019

6. We have perused the impugned judgement. Relevant extracts, i.e., para 4, 5 and 6 of which are as under:- "4. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner possesses qualification of Master of Business Administration, which she passed out in the year 2008 and she was given appointment on the post of T.P.O. in the pay-scale of Assistant Professor with A.G.P. of Rs.6000/-. Thus, under the Regulations, 2012, the petitioner is entitled to get A.G.P. of Rs.7000/- on completion of five years. The petitioner is claiming A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. The petitioner, however, has been granted A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from 01.05.2018. It is provided that the A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- can be provided to an Assistant Professor only after completion of ten years of service i.e. five years in grade-pay of Rs.6000-7000 and five years in A.G.P. of Rs.7000-8000. In the case of the petitioner, however, this requirement appears to have been relaxed, considering the recommendation of the Director of the Institute, her performance and considering her services in public limited companies i.e. H.D.F.C. and Vipro Limited. The services rendered by the petitioner in these two companies have been taken into account and recommendation was put up before the S Screening Committee and, thereafter, it has been decided that the petitioner would meet the requirements of ten years service after counting five years service of public limited companies from May, 2004 to September, 2009.

5. Even if M.B.A. Degree is to be treated as Post Graduate Degree, the petitioner was required to have five years service on the post equivalent to Assistant Professor on which she was appointed inasmuch as the T.P.O. carries the same pay-scale as that of the Assistant Professor with A.G.P. of Rs.6000/-. Thus, the petitioner should have rendered five years service for granting her A.G.P. of Rs.7000/- and, thereafter five years service for granting her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. The Director of the Institute as well as Screening Committee have been considerate to wards the petitioner, looking at her performance and contribution in bringing the companies to the Campus for campus placement and, thereafter a lenient view was taken to grant her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, even considering the services rendered by her in private sectors i.e. H.D.F.C. and Vipro Limited.

6. The petitioner's claim for granting A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from the date of recommendation by the Screening Committee appears to have no basis. When Regulations, 2012 itself provide that it would require ten years of service for giving A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, as mentioned above, mere on the basis of recommendation, which does not specify the date from which the petitioner should be given A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. She cannot claim for grant of A.G.P. fo Rs.8000/- to her from the date of recommendation of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee has taken a considerable view in favour of the petitioner by taking into account her services rendered in the private limited companies for giving her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from 1st May, 2018. If services rendered in two private companies are not counted, the petitioner would not have completed 10 years of service as mandated under the Regulations, 3 SPLAD No. 462 of 2019

2012. Any recommendation, which is against the statutory provision, cannot be given effect to. The Screening Committee has recommended that the petitioner should be given A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, but same cannot be given from a date when she did not have rendered the eligible service. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for granting her A.G.P. of Rs. 8000/- with effect from the date of recommendation of the Screening Committee has no force and legal sanctity. The petitioner cannot be given the A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- in violation of provisions of the Regulations, 2012 and, thus, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable."

7. We do not find any error in the judgement impugned before us. Apparently, taking a lenient view of the matter and relaxing the conditions, the benefit has already been granted to the appellant. Now, there is no provision under which further relaxation could be granted. In fact, it is highly doubtful as to whether such benefit could have been conferred upon the appellant strictly in terms of the Regulations of the AICTE in the first place itself. However, we do not make any further observations, as we do not find any error in the impugned judgement. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that merely because a recommendation was made by the Committee it is not liable to be accepted, if there is no legal basis or statutory backing. We see no merit in the appeal.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. November 15, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel appearing for the Institute where the appellant is working.

2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condoantion application is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed. Delay condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. Order on Appeal

4. The contention of the appellant's counsel was that looking into her excellent services, the Committee recommended grant of Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/-, but this has been granted only w.e.f. 1.5.2018, whereas it should have been granted w.e.f. August, 2014.

5. On being asked, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that as per the Norms and Regulations, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit, but looking into her excellent services, she has been given the said benefit. 2 SPLAD No. 462 of 2019

6. We have perused the impugned judgement. Relevant extracts, i.e., para 4, 5 and 6 of which are as under:- "4. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner possesses qualification of Master of Business Administration, which she passed out in the year 2008 and she was given appointment on the post of T.P.O. in the pay-scale of Assistant Professor with A.G.P. of Rs.6000/-. Thus, under the Regulations, 2012, the petitioner is entitled to get A.G.P. of Rs.7000/- on completion of five years. The petitioner is claiming A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. The petitioner, however, has been granted A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from 01.05.2018. It is provided that the A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- can be provided to an Assistant Professor only after completion of ten years of service i.e. five years in grade-pay of Rs.6000-7000 and five years in A.G.P. of Rs.7000-8000. In the case of the petitioner, however, this requirement appears to have been relaxed, considering the recommendation of the Director of the Institute, her performance and considering her services in public limited companies i.e. H.D.F.C. and Vipro Limited. The services rendered by the petitioner in these two companies have been taken into account and recommendation was put up before the S Screening Committee and, thereafter, it has been decided that the petitioner would meet the requirements of ten years service after counting five years service of public limited companies from May, 2004 to September, 2009.

5. Even if M.B.A. Degree is to be treated as Post Graduate Degree, the petitioner was required to have five years service on the post equivalent to Assistant Professor on which she was appointed inasmuch as the T.P.O. carries the same pay-scale as that of the Assistant Professor with A.G.P. of Rs.6000/-. Thus, the petitioner should have rendered five years service for granting her A.G.P. of Rs.7000/- and, thereafter five years service for granting her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. The Director of the Institute as well as Screening Committee have been considerate to wards the petitioner, looking at her performance and contribution in bringing the companies to the Campus for campus placement and, thereafter a lenient view was taken to grant her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, even considering the services rendered by her in private sectors i.e. H.D.F.C. and Vipro Limited.

6. The petitioner's claim for granting A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from the date of recommendation by the Screening Committee appears to have no basis. When Regulations, 2012 itself provide that it would require ten years of service for giving A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, as mentioned above, mere on the basis of recommendation, which does not specify the date from which the petitioner should be given A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-. She cannot claim for grant of A.G.P. fo Rs.8000/- to her from the date of recommendation of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee has taken a considerable view in favour of the petitioner by taking into account her services rendered in the private limited companies for giving her A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- with effect from 1st May, 2018. If services rendered in two private companies are not counted, the petitioner would not have completed 10 years of service as mandated under the Regulations, 3 SPLAD No. 462 of 2019

2012. Any recommendation, which is against the statutory provision, cannot be given effect to. The Screening Committee has recommended that the petitioner should be given A.G.P. of Rs.8000/-, but same cannot be given from a date when she did not have rendered the eligible service. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for granting her A.G.P. of Rs. 8000/- with effect from the date of recommendation of the Screening Committee has no force and legal sanctity. The petitioner cannot be given the A.G.P. of Rs.8000/- in violation of provisions of the Regulations, 2012 and, thus, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable."

7. We do not find any error in the judgement impugned before us. Apparently, taking a lenient view of the matter and relaxing the conditions, the benefit has already been granted to the appellant. Now, there is no provision under which further relaxation could be granted. In fact, it is highly doubtful as to whether such benefit could have been conferred upon the appellant strictly in terms of the Regulations of the AICTE in the first place itself. However, we do not make any further observations, as we do not find any error in the impugned judgement. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that merely because a recommendation was made by the Committee it is not liable to be accepted, if there is no legal basis or statutory backing. We see no merit in the appeal.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. November 15, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench