AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii):
7(i) That the applicant may please be declared entitled to the benefit of 3 advance increments w.e.f. 01-04-1986, the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Scientist (Agronomy and Agrometerology) in view of Annexure-A/2 and A/7 since the applicant possesses the Degree of Ph.D. In the subject of Agronomy and Agrometerology from the H.P.K.V. Palampur which benefit is quite distinct and separate and has no relation at all in allowing the pay protection and fixing his pay at Rs. 2800/- p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 in-as-much as the benefit of pay protection is given for the past service rendered vis-a-vis better performance in the interview etc. How the benefit of 3 advance increments for acquiring higher educational qualification i.e. Ph.D. Could be kept in view while allowing pay protection at the time of initial appointment i.e. on 01-04-1986 when it was not in force. It was much after the appointment of the applicant as Assistant Scientist (Agronomy and Agrometerology) that the benefit of 3 advance increments was given for PH.D. qualification.
(ii) That the Respondents may further be directed to fix the pay of the applicant at Rs. 3100/- per monthly as on 01-04-1986, the date of initial appointment after allowing him the benefit of 3 advance increments as submitted supra in prayer(i).
In reply, Respondent has taken the following stand by way of preliminary objection and on merits vide para 6(c) and (e):
Preliminary objection:
The application is time barred so it is not maintainable. The applicant was appointed in the Respondent university on 1.4.1986 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 700-1600 which was revised to Rs. 2200-4000 vide Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt. of Education) letter No. F 1-21/87-VII dated 22.7.1988 (as per annexure A-7) and the same was adopted in the Respondent university vide letter No. Dub.1-218/86(Rev. Scales)/ HPKV/67471-551 dated 19.12.1988. It was in this revised scale (Annexure A-7) that a provision of three advance increments was allowed to those Assistant Professors/equivalent who were appointed after 1.1.1986 in the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The applicant remained silent from 19.12.1988 to 12.9.1993. however, he filed Civil Writ Petition for soliciting the advantage of the said three increments from the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh after a lapse of about 5 years from the date such a provision was made. So it has become time barred and thus the applicant is not maintainable. Moreover, the applicant is claiming that time barred claim through this application from the Hon''ble Tribunal now after a lapse of more than 9 years, so it is also barred by limitation as prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Indian Limitation Act.
On merits:
6(c) That the contents of sub-para (c) of para 6 are admitted to the extent that applicant was appointed as Assistant Scientist Agronomy on 27.5.1985 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 980/- pm in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1986. However, on general pay revision which was made effective w.e.f. 1.1.1986, the pay of the applicant was fixed at Rs. 2800/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.4.1986 in the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000 as per fitment table circulated by the Himachal Pradesh Government.
6(e) That the pay of the applicant has already been fixed by adding the benefits of more than 7 increments in the scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. Para 12 of the Government of India''s letter No. F-I-21/87-VII dated 22nd July, 1987 (Annexure A-7) contemplates benefit of three advance increments to those holding PHD degree in initial of the scale of Rs. 2200-4000. since the pay of the applicant is fixed at a stage of Rs. 2800/- by adding the benefit of eight increments in the scale of Rs. 2200-400, so he is not entitled for further benefit of three more advance increments as contended.
The Petitioner, who was aged 56 years (in March/April, 1998), at the time of filing of the original application (O.A.) before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, must have retired from the service of the Respondent-University long back.
In view of the above reply and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before the Respondent by way of appropriate representation along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so desired.
In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.