LexKERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY versus B.K. JAYACHANDRAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 6 S.C.R. 76 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. B.K. JAYACHANDRAN ETC. (Civil Appeal No. 2540-2542 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service law: Promotion - Grant of time bound grade promotion to teaching staff upon accepting recommendation C of Fourth Pay Commission - Scheme for promotion recommended by UGC!ICAR and accepted by University - Under the Scheme, benefit of revision available from date of promotion only - Associate Professor (non cadre) included within the purview of said scheme - Held: Their promotion o received statutory protection - High Court was correct in directing that benefit of revised scale of pay should be extended only from date of promotion. The respondents were appointed as Assistant Professors in 1979, 1982 and 1983. In 1988, appellant· E University issued an order whereby decision was taken by the State of Kerala directing grant of time-bound grade promotion to the teaching staff upon accepting the • i •I· recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. "' Pursuant to this, the scales of pay of Assistant Professor .- F and Associate Professor were revised to Rs.1500-26851- 1 and Rs.1950-29501- respectively. Clause VI of the Pay Revision Order provided for grant of time bound higher grade promotion (Non-cadre) to those having total ten years' of service in the first two grades taken together G where there were four levels from the entry cadre to the : _.. Professor Cadre. On 23.3.1988, appellant-University, in terms of the said direction, ordered for grant of 1st higher grade non-cadre promotion as Assistant Professor (Higher Grade) with pay of Rs.1950-29501-. Pursuant to H 76 -~ KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY v. B.K. 77 JAYACHANDRAN ETC. the said decision, the designation of the Assistant A Professor (Higher Grade) was changed to that of Associate Professor (Non-Cadre). They were placed In the pay scale of Rs.1950-2950/· subject to conditions mentioned therein. By an order issued by the appellant· University, thirty five Assistant Professors including the B contesting respondents were granted time bound higher grade non-cadre promotion to the posts of Associate Professor (Non-Cadre) with effect from 04.10.1987, !)1 .04.1987 and 12.01.1987 respectively. On 25.6.1990, a ·, Scheme as recommended by UGC/ICAR and approved · c by the Government of Kerala was accepted by the University subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with retrospective effect from 1.1.1986. One of the terms was that promotions made before the announcement of the revised scales of pay on 1.2.1988 D by the l.C.A.R. would not be reopened. However, in such cases the benefit of revision would be available to teachers only from the date of promotion. The existing merit promotion sctieme viz., assessment, norms and Non-cadre promotion made after 1.2.1988 would be E treated as cancelled. No such promotion schemes would be in vogue from the date of issue of these orders. A Government Order No. G.O. (MS) 190/93 dated 22.9.1993 was issued granting higher scale of pay to the teachers in the category of Assistant Professors. Questioning the . F · validity of the said G.O., several writ applications were filed by Assistant Professors of other disciplines in the said University before the High Court. Single Judge of·· High Court held that the Associate Professors who were promoted as Associate Professors (Non-Cadre) would G not be entitled to be placed in the UGC/ICAR scale of pay of Associate Professors, namely, Rs.3700-5700/-, and they could only be placed in the UGC/ICAR scale of pay of Assistant Professors. H 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A On appeal, Division Bench of High Court reversed the judgment of Single Judge of High Court, holding that merit promotions under the l.C.A.R. scheme would be governed by the seniority in the cadre in which they were appointed and not in the non-cadre post and the creation B of the post of Assistant Professor (non-cadre) was illegal. • The scheme was still not implemented in case of respondents. They filed writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus against appellant - University to ~ C . place them in the UGC/ICAR scale of pay of Rs. 3700- 5700 with effect from their respective dates of promotion as Associate Professors (Non-Cadre) and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. The High Court allowed writ pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.