IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06/11/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION.NO.2348 OF 2002 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2002
N. Arumugam .. Petitioner in both WPs
-Vs-
1. The University of Grants
Commission,
rep. by its Secretary
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002.
2. The Registrar,
The Ghandigram Rural Institute
(Deemed University), Ghandhigram,
Dindigul District. .. Respondents in WP.2348/02
1. The Registrar,
The Ghandigram Rural Institute
(Deemed University), Ghandhigram,
Dindigul District.
2. The University of Grants
Commission,
rep. by its Secretary
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002. .. Respondents in WP.2349/02
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorari and Certiorarified Mandamus respectively, as
stated therein.
!For Petitioner : Ms.K. Suguna
For Respondents : Mr.J. Madanagopal Rao,
SCGSC
:J U D G M E N T
Both the writ petitions being inter-linked, heard together and
shall be governed by this common decision.
2. In W.P.No.2348 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for
issuing writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 5.10.2000 issued in
Ref.No.E3-1/94 (PS)by the University Grants Commission, the first respondent
and further for quashing the order issued by the Gandhigram Rural Institute,
dated 7.1.2002 in Ref.No.435/Est.2/2001-2002/4301.
3. Prayer in the connected W.P.No.2349 of 2002 is to quash
the order passed by Gandhigram Rural Institute, dated 2.1.2002 in
Ref.No.435/Est.2/2001-2002/4231.
4. For convenience, the University Grants Commission shall be
referred to as the first respondent and the Gandhigram Rural Institute shall
be referred to as the second respondent hereinafter.
5. The second respondent was initially having the status of a
college. At that stage, the petitioner was appointed as Librarian in the pay
scale which was similar to that of a Lecturer in Tamil Nadu State Government
pattern college. In course of time, the second respondent become a deemed
University with effect from 3.8.1976. The second respondent receives 100%
grant from the first respondent. From January 1986, the second respondent
followed the UGC staff pattern. As per the staff pattern, at that stage, the
post of Librarian carried the pay scale of Rs.4500-150-7300 at par with
Professor cadre, the post of Deputy Librarian carried the pay scale of
Rs.3700-125-5700 at par with Reader cadre and the post of Assistant Librarian
carried the pay scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 at pat with Lecturer cadre.
In course of time, the first respondent has sanctioned the post of Deputy
Librarian in the pay scale equivalent to that of a Reader cadre. While the
matter stood thus, Advertisement dated 25.6.1989 was issued for filling up the
post of Deputy Librarian. The petitioner claims that since he was holding the
post of Librarian and the scale of pay for the Deputy Librarian was higher, he
had raised objection, but on the oral instructions of the then Vice
Chancellor, he had applied for the said post with the understanding that he
would continue to work with the designation of Librarian. Thereafter, the
petitioner was selected and was allowed the pay scale of Deputy Librarian, but
continued to hold the designation of the Librarian on the basis of the
proceedings of the Syndicate. Subsequently, he made a representation to
revise his pay scale at par with the pay scale applicable to Librarian. The
second respondent, at that stage, issued an order indicating that the
petitioner should be designated as Deputy Librarian. Against such order, the
petitioner filed W.P.No.4694 of 1995. The said writ petition was allowed on
the ground that re-designation of the petitioner as Deputy Librarian had been
done without following the principles of natural justice.
While the matter stood thus, the first respondent by letter in Ref.
No.F3-1/94(PS) dated 5.10.2000 issued instructions indicating that the age of
superannuation of the Deputy Librarian is 60 years. On the basis of such
letter issued by the first respondent, the second respondent under the
impugned letter dated 7.1.2002 in Ref.No.435/Est.2/200 1-2002/4301 informed
the petitioner that he has to retire from service on attaining the age of 60
with effect from 28.8.2002. As already indicated, W.P.No.2348 of 2002 has
been filed for quashing these two directions. Impugned order dated 2.1.2002,
which has been challenged in the connected W.P.No.2349 of 2002, is to the
effect that the petitioner should use the designation of Deputy Librarian and
not the designation of the Librarian. This is mainly on the footing that the
post of Librarian, as per the first respondent, carries the pay scale of
Professor and such post has not been sanctioned.
6. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the
respondents 1 and 2 justifying the action taken by them.
7. The following questions crop up for the decision :-
(1) Whether the petitioner has the right to be designated as Librarian
and, if so, whether he would be entitled to the emoluments applicable to a
Librarian, which is similar to that of a Professor ?
(2) Even assuming that the petitioner would not be designated as
Librarian and would continue to be designated as Deputy Librarian, whether he
should be allowed to continue in service till the age of 62 ?
8. So far as the first question is concerned, it is apparent
that initially the petitioner had been appointed as Librarian in a college
and the scale of pay payable was that of a Lecturer. When the college became
a deemed university, the petitioner continued in the said scale of pay and in
course of time, UGC staff pattern was adopted. There were three posts,
namely, Librarian in the pay scale of Professor, Deputy Librarian in the pay
scale of Reader and Assistant Librarian in the pay scale of Lecturer. In
1989, a post of Deputy Librarian was sanctioned for the second respondent
which had become a deemed university by then. Even though the petitioner was
apparently designated as Librarian, it is obvious that he was getting the
scale of pay applicable to a Lecturer and since the scale of pay for the
approved post of Deputy Librarian was higher, being at par with the scale of
pay applicable to the post of Reader. The petitioner after some initial
hesitation applied for the post and got selected and he was given the benefit
of scale of pay applicable to Deputy Librarian. On the basis of the
representation made by the petitioner, he continued to be designated as
Librarian, even though in reality he was Deputy Librarian being allowed to
draw scale of pay applicable to Deputy Librarian equivalent to Reader. In
other words, from that stage onwards, he was the Deputy Librarian even though
euphemistically designated as the Librarian. This position had continued, but
when the petitioner demanded that he should be paid the pay scale of a
Professor, the second respondent thought it proper to re-designate him as
Deputy Librarian, which was successfully challenged in the earlier W.P.No.4694
of 1995. In the said decision, however, it was made clear that the order had
been set aside merely because principles of natural justice had not been
followed and it was left open to the second respondent to consider the matter
afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, the second
respondent after giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed an order
indicating that the petitioner should be re-designated as Deputy Librarian.
9. On going through the materials on record and after hearing
the counsels appearing for the parties, I do not find any illegality or
irregularity in such order passed by the second respondent. If the
petitioners stand that he should be considered as a Librarian is to be
accepted, there is no logic in the petitioner applying for the post of Deputy
Librarian. It is evident that the University has permitted to use the
designation as Librarian as a special concession to the petitioners sentiment
and not as a recognition of his right. It has to be remembered that the post
of Librarian in the pay scale of Professor is yet to be sanctioned for the
deemed university by the UGC, the first respondent, and therefore, it would
not be proper to uphold the contention of the petitioner to designate him as a
full-fledged Librarian. The contentions raised in WP.No.2348 of 2002 cannot
be accepted.
10. The question raised in the connected writ petition stands
on a different albeit comparatively surer footing. To appreciate the
questions involved, it is necessary at this stage to refer to Notification of
the University Grants Commission dated 24.12.1998. This relates to
notification on Revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment
of teachers in Universities & Colleges and measures for the maintenance of
standards.
11. 16.0.0 of the aforesaid notification relates to
superannuation and re-employment of teachers. 16.1.0 and 16.2.0 being
relevant are extracted hereunder in extenso :-
16.0.0 SUPERANNUATION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS
16.1.0 Teachers will retire at the age of 62. However, it is open to
a University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to
the existing guidelines framed by the UGC upto the age of 65 years.
16.2.0 Age of retirement of Registrars, Librarians, Physical Education
personnel, Controllers of Examinations, Finance Officers and such other
university employees who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose
age of superannuation was 60 years, would be 62 years. No re-employment
facility is recommended for the Registrars, Librarians and Directors of
Physical Education.
12. Subsequently, a letter was written by the Deputy
Secretary on behalf of the UGC to the second respondent, which is extracted
hereunder :-
. . . The Commission in its meeting held on 16th August, 2000
discussed the issue of age of retirement of Assistant Registrars, Deputy
Registrars, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Assistant Director of
Physical Education & Deputy Director of Physical Education in the University
system and declared as under :
The Commission decided that the age of retirement of Assistant
Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Director of Physical Education, Deputy
Director of Physical Education, Assistant Librarian and Deputy Librarian shall
be 60 years. It was further decided that if any institution has so far
extended the superannuation age to 62 years in respect of any of the aforesaid
category of employees it must with immediate effect be brought down to 60
years. It was further decided that with immediate effect from now the
aforesaid category of employees shall superannuate at the age of 60 years.
13. It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid
impugned letter issued on behalf of UGC is contrary to the notification dated
24.12.1998 as well as contrary to the letter received from HRD Ministry under
letter No.F-49/98-U.I(Pt.) dated 16.11.1999. Under the latter letter it seems
HRD Ministry has indicated that library staff shall be treated on par with the
teaching staff in respect of age of superannuation. Even though the letter
recei ved from the Ministry may not be conclusive in such matters, the
notification issued by the UGC in 1998 being a statutory notification has to
be implemented. Paragraph 16.2.0, which has already been extracted, relates
specifically to the retirement of the Registrars, Librarians, Physical
education personnel, Controllers of Examinations and Finance Officers. There
is no doubt that such officials would retire at the age of 62 in view of the
specific provision made in paragraph 16.2.0. The contention of the petitioner
is to the effect that the expression Librarian should also include the
Deputy Librarian and Assistant Librarian. Such a contention prima facie has
got some merits. However, it is unnecessary to deal with this aspect, as in
my opinion, other phrase dealing with other university employees is
applicable. It has to be appreciated that the expression such other
university employees who are being treated at par with the teachers and whose
age of superannuation was 60 years would be 62 years would also be applicable
to the Deputy Librarian as per paragraph 16.2.0. Even assuming that the
petitioner being a Deputy Librarian may not answer the description
Librarian, obviously he comes under the category of other university
employees. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the petitioner, being an
other university employee, can be treated on par with the teachers.
14. It is the case of the petitioner that he was being
treated as a member of the teaching staff and was taking classes and was also
the Chairman of Board of Studies. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the second respondent it has been asserted albeit grudgingly as follows :-
(i) The Library Science course are run from the year 1993-94 only.
3 batches of course were conducted. The course was staggered for a period of
three years, and the course was restarted from the academic year 1999-2000.
From the above fact it can be seen that the petitioner has handled classes
only for a period of 5 years in his total service and not all the years in his
service period.
15. It is not disputed that the pay scale of Deputy Librarian
is at par with the pay scale of Reader. Since the pay scales were same and
the petitioner was also taking classes, it is obvious that the petitioner was
being treated at par with the teachers not only so far as the salary was
concerned but also in respect of an important duty. It is of course true that
in the counter affidavit the second respondent has indicated that unlike the
teachers, the person holding the post of non-academic staff, namely, Assistant
Director of Physical Education, Assistant Registrar, Assistant Librarian did
not have the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme. In the present case, we
are not concerned with the question as to whether these persons are to be
treated as teachers for all the purpose. The only question is to be
considered is the age of superannuation.
16. From the UGC notification it is apparent that the
intention of the UGC is to allow the persons involved in teaching to retire at
the age of 62. Since under the second respondent, a course relating to
Library Science has been introduced and the petitioner had been entrusted with
the job of teaching, it would be improper to hold that his job was not a
similar to that of a teaching staff.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to hold that the
age of superannuation of the petitioner should be taken as 62 years. It is
however made clear that where the Deputy Librarian of a University is not
assigned the job of teaching, such Deputy Librarian would not be entitled to
continue till the age of 62 and only where the Deputy Librarian is involved in
teaching, the retirem ent age of 62 will be applicable. In such view of the
matter, the petitioner should be allowed to continue as the Deputy Librarian
till he attains the age of 62 .
18. The next question is as to whether the petitioner should
be paid the salary for the period which he was not actually worked and retired
at the age of 60.
19. The petitioner has approached the High Court immediately,
but no stay was granted. The second respondent is an educational institution.
It is of course true that money has to be paid by the UGC, the first
respondent. Even though the petitioner was not at fault, it may not be proper
to give him the entire financial benefit as he had not actually worked.
20. Having regard to all these aspects, I am of the
considered opinion that for the period from discontinuance of the petitioner
at the age of attaining 60 till reinstatement pursuant to the present
direction, the petitioner should be paid 50% of all the emoluments payable,
but the petitioner would be deemed to be in service throughout and such period
shall be counted towards service for all other purpose. The petitioner shall
be paid full amount from the date of reinstatement till his retirement at the
age of 62. The direction regarding reinstatement should be complied within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The emoluments for
the past period should be paid within three months.
21. In the result, W.P.No.2348 of 2002 is rejected and
W.P.No.2349 of 2002 is allowed in part. No costs.
Index : Yes
Index : Yes
dpk
To
1. The University of Grants
Commission,
rep. by its Secretary
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002.
2. The Registrar,
The Ghandigram Rural Institute
(Deemed University), Ghandhigram,
Dindigul District.