YAMUNA SHANKAR SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 09-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
> 
YAMUNASHANKARSHARMA 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN & ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay scale-Assistant Professor filed writ petition seeking direction to 
University to grant pay scale of Rs.700-1600 recommended by UGC-This 
C 
Court had directed that petitioner be allowed a consolidated salary 
worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700 p.m., which was 
the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600-0n recommendations of the 
Committee constituted by Board of Management, University allowed the 
UGC pay scales to the petitioner-Notice issued by University for recovery 
on the ground that UGC scale was wrongly allowed to petitioner which 
resulted in excess payment-Held, order was passed by University on the 
basis of the recommendations of the Committee to pay the UGC pay scale 
at a particular scale which was applicable at the relevant point of time-
Hence, Notice of recovery cannot be maintained. 
Appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor of Law in College of 
Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant 
Professor. In 1983, he was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the 
post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. He, however, was not selected 
and as a result whereof, his services were not continued after 31.5.1983. 
After a gap of about nine months, he was again appointed in the University 
D 
E 
F 
on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant/Associate but the 
appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. As Legal Assistant/ 
Legal Associate, appellant was paid a consolidated salary ofRs.1,200 per 
month which was enhanced to Rs.1,620 per month. He was terminated from 
services w.e.f. 14.11.1988 on account of absence from duty. The absence 
G 
was due to his having undertaken Ph.D work at Delhi University. 
After acquiring the Ph.D Degree, he was again appointed by the 
......,. 
University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on 
fixed salary ofRs.2,070 per month as stop-gap arrangement The appointment 
H 
289 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him 
until 31.3.2003. After 31.3.2003 services were not extended, with the 
result that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the University. 
B 
Appellant along with other Research Assistants/Associates filed batch 
of writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking 
directions to the University to grant to them the scale of Rs. 700-1600 
recommended by the Grant Commission w.e.f 1.1.1973. 
In that batch of writ petitions, this Court rejected the demand of the 
petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs.700-Rs.1600. This Court, 
C 
however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated 
salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs.700 per 
month, which was the minimum of the ,scale of Rs. 700-1600 and also 
monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees 
drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700 per month. 
D 
The Vice Chancellor allowed the UGC pay scales to the appellant. 
E 
F 
G 
Though initially the appellant was allowed to draw the UGC pay scale, on 
13.1.2003 notice was issued to show cause as to why the excess payment 
made was not to be recovered from him. It was indicated that the UGC scale 
was wrongly allowed to the appellant which resulted in excess payment. 
Subsequently, Registrar of the University informed the Dean, College of 
law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment to the appellant was 
not extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the decision of the Board of 
management. Aggrieved appellant successfully filed writ petition. On 
appeal, the Division Bench partly modified the order and held that 
regularization was not to be granted as claimed but directed that the 
appellant's case was to be considered on following the criteria as per the 
applicable rules and that while subjecting appellant for selection process, 
past service rendered by him was to be given due weightage. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court 
did not consider the effect of the fact that the appellant was highly qualified 
and had rendered uninterrupted and unblemished service of more than a 
decade; that to deny regularization would be inequitable and unjust and that 
the notice on the ground that excess payment have been made is without 
basis. 
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.