AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
The petitioners, twenty-six in number, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay them the revised pay-scales, as made payable by the University Grants Commission (for short the 'UGC'), i.e. from Rs. 2,200/- - Rs. 4,200/- to Rs. 8,000/- - Rs. 13,500/-, as paid to equivalent posts of Assistant Scientists and Assistant Professors from 18.12.2008 i.e. the date of appointment as Junior Scientists, and to pay the grade-pay of Rs. 6,000/-, payable as against the said scale, to the petitioners; for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to resettle the salary, and pay the arrears on the basis of the scale as made payable by the UGC in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 11.09.2012, as affirmed by the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2014; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take an appropriate decision, on the representation submitted by the petitioners, for grant of the scales as made applicable in accordance with the UGC norms. Subsequently, the petitioners sought amendment of the prayer to include a challenge to the order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the respondent-University withdrawing the earlier order issued on 16.10.2008, and the amendment petition was ordered.
Facts, to the limited extend necessary, are that the petitioners were inducted into the posts of Teaching / Research / Extension Associates in projects regulated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short the 'ICAR') during the years 1983 to 1992. They were appointed on a consolidated pay which was Rs. 1,200/- for those of them who had a Graduate Degree in Agricultural Sciences, Rs. 1,600/- for those who had a Post-Graduate Degree in Agricultural Sciences, and Rs. 1,800/- for those who had a Ph.D. Degree. When their services were sought to be terminated, some of the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court and, on their challenge being repelled, they approached the Supreme Court.
In its order in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9865-71/91, 10410/91 along with 9017/91 dated 26.07.1991, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent-University undertook research projects; a person, who worked efficiently in a project, need not be sent out on the basis of the time limit; and there was no rationale in the Scheme introduced by the memorandum dated 30.04.1990, particularly in regard to the duration of the appointment. The Supreme Court directed that all the three categories of employees, associated with the research programmes, should have employment co-terminus with the projects; such appointment did not give them any right to claim any title over the position beyond the life of the project; and those who were in service upto May, 1991, and their projects were on, should be re-inducted into the projects within one month from the date of the order, and be continued on the same terms as they were prior to May, 1991. Pursuant thereto, all the petitioners were re-engaged as Research / Teaching / Extension Associates.
While matters stood thus, the ICAR, in its proceedings dated 20.04.1993, noted that, consequent upon implementation of the University Grants Commission's (UGC) recommendations in State Agricultural Universities (SAUs), and on receiving several requests and representations, they had, vide letter dated 29.11.1988, permitted adjustment, of the unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants, upgrading them to the grade of Assistant Scientists / Assistant Professors; the Council (ICAR) had extended this benefit till the end of the Seventh plan i.e. upto 31.03.1990 subject to the condition that, beyond that period, the SAUs should explore adjustment of these unadjusted posts (if any) at their own level and liability as they deemed fit. Reference was made by the ICAR, in its letter dated 20.04.1994, to its earlier letter dated 29.11.1988 wherein a reference was made to a meeting held on 25.10.1988 to take a final decision in the matter. In the said meeting held on 25.10.1988 it was decided that these unadjusted posts may be allowed to continue till the end of the 7th Five-Year Plan as a special case, no further extension would be granted under any circumstances for these posts during the 8th plan, and this decision may be communicated to the Universities concerned well in advance to enable them to adjust these posts by the end of the 7th Five-Year Plan as they deemed fit.
The proceedings of the ICAR dated 20.04.1993 thereafter records that, consequent on the decision of the Council dated 29.11.1988, several STAs were benefitted; the issue of adjusting the unadjusted STAs was supposed to have been finally settled; however, some representations were received from State Agricultural Universities informing that they still possessed problems of adjusting some unadjusted STAs, and had requested that such left over cases of STAs be extended the benefit of upgradation to the Assistant Scientists level; and they had sought information concerning such cases in the affected SAUs, wherein the unadjusted posts of STAs were still under various projects of ICAR.
Office Order dated 30.11.1993 was issued by the respondent-University taking note of the resolution of the Board of Management in its 150th meeting dated 10/11.09.1993 regarding arrears of enhanced pay of employees, working on a consolidated salary, as per the recommendations of the Parity Committee. The said office-order dated 30.11.1993 also records the approval of the Board of Management for payment of arrears, with effect from 01.01.1986 till 22.09.1991, incurred due to the revision in the pay-scales of employees working on consolidated salary; and the Board of Management had also directed absorption of the employees working on consolidated salary on priority, in the posts available in future, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed qualifications, and as per rules.
The petitioners were absorbed by the respondent-University, by office order dated 01.02.1996, in the posts of Technical Assistants / Senior Technical Assistants. While the absorption was, no doubt, with respect to different projects, the said order records that this order would come into operation with effect from 22.07.1995, and the terms and conditions of service of these Technical Assistants / Senior Technical Assistants shall be governed as per Universities Rules. In effect, from 22.07.1995 onwards, the petitioners became the regular employees of the respondent-University. Subsequent to their absorption in the post of Technical Assistants / Senior Technical Assistants, vide proceedings dated 01.02.1996 with effect from 22.07.1995, the Board of Management of the respondent-University, in its meeting held on 04.04.2008, considered the recommendations of the Finance Committee, and opined that there was no difficulty in granting the pay-scales to the Senior Technical Assistants, working in the research projects, funded by ICAR, New Delhi; a decision would have to be taken with regards those Senior Technical Assistants who were drawing their salary from the General Budget of the University; and a proposal, with complete information, be placed again in the next meeting.
A proposal was submitted, thereafter, to the effect that there were thirty-five posts of Senior Technical Assistants, in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,500/- - Rs. 9,000/-, in thirteen All India co-ordinated Research Projects running in the University, of which twenty-seven posts were filled-up; five persons were working in the posts of Research / Extension and Teaching Associates; the cadre of Research / Extension and Teaching Associates was declared as dying; salaries of these Associates were being drawn against various projects under the University's General Budget after designating them as Senior Technical Assistants; and necessary action should be taken for transferring these five Senior Technical Assistants in projects, and to draw their salaries against vacant positions in these projects.
Pursuant to the said proposal, the Board of Management of the respondent-University, in its meeting dated 16.10.2008, resolved to upgrade the posts of the Senior Technical Assistants (pay-scale Rs. 5,500-Rs.9,000), working in the University, to the post of Junior Scientists (Pay-Scale Rs. 8,000-13,500) as per the directives of ICAR to work in these projects; and their total expenditure should be borne from the research projects. The Board of Management issued directions to transfer the remaining Senior Technical Assistants, working in the General Budget, to the vacant positions of Senior Technical Assistants in various research projects and posts. Pursuant thereto, office order dated 18.12.2008 was issued referring to the Board Resolution dated 16.10.2008.
The said office order dated 18.12.2008 records that the Directorate of Research, vide its letter dated 18.12.2008, had informed that, presently, seventeen posts of Senior Technical Assistants were available; and, against these seventeen posts, Senior Technical Assistants in the order of seniority (in the order they acquired post-graduate degrees) were being accorded Junior Scientist PRC (pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500) from the date of the order i.e. 18.12.2008. The said order, after referring to the senior most seventeen Senior Technical Assistants by name, also records that the above benefit would be allowed with the condition of financial approval of the Funding Agency (ICAR), and continuity of the projects; and separate orders would be issued for their place of posting, and the source of their salary. Pursuant to office order No. PMA/ 3500 dated 18.12.2018, these seventeen STAs joined duty on 19.12.2008.
By its letter dated 05.02.2009, ICAR informed the Director, Experiment Station of the respondent-University that the proposal for upradation / redesignation of Senior Technical Assistants to the post of Junior Scientists was considered in the ICAR, but the same had not been acceded to.
Subsequently, by office order dated 18.07.2010, thirteen more Senior Technical Assistants, working in different projects funded by the ICAR, were accorded the benefit of upgradation to the post of Junior Scientists PRC pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 (revised pay scale of Rs. 15,600-Rs.39100 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400) with effect from 18.12.2008, with the condition that approval of the funding Agency i.e. ICAR would be obtained, and on condition that the projects were continued. The said office order dated 18.07.2010 further records that these benefits were to be accorded with the condition that the approval of the funding Agency i.e. ICAR is obtained, and the projects were continued; and the salary of these personnel would continue to be drawn in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-Rs. 9,000 (revised pay-scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200) till approval, regarding upgradation / re-designation in the pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 was received from ICAR. The matter was directed to be placed in the next meeting of the Board of Management. Pursuant to the office order dated 18.07.2010, the thirteen upgraded STAs joined duty on 19.07.2010.
A high-powered committee was constituted by the Board of Management on 18.04.2011. The said high-powered committee, in its meeting held on 16.05.2012, discussed the issue regarding the pay-scales of Senior Technical Assistants / Junior Scientists working in the University. The Committee found that the University had designated Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists, and had informed ICAR after issuing the orders, and had sought financial approval which was not agreed to by ICAR; the University should have informed ICAR before issuing any kind of orders; the University had designated thirty Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists with effect from 18.12.2008, and they were working as Junior Scientists presently; and the Board of Management should be requested to recommend the whole matter to the Government of Uttarakhand for its approval for granting them designation and pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500 (revised pay scale Rs. 15,600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs. 5,400).
As they were not extended the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500, despite the office orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court filing the present writ petition on 03.12.2014. When the writ petition was pending on the file of this Court, a proposal was placed before the Board of Management, for its consideration, in its meeting held on 18.06.2015. The said proposal referred to the earlier office order dated 09.01.2009, whereby Senior Technical Assistants / Junior Scientists, working in various Research Projects, were required to continue to do research work as they had been doing; the Director, Experiment Station had informed various Project Co-ordinators about the upgadation of Senior Technical Assistants to Junior Scientists with a request to make budgetary provision; ICAR and various project co-ordinators did not agree to the decision of the University; a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Agriculture on 18.08.2009 wherein complications arising out of upgradation of Senior Technical Assistants, to the posts of Junior Scientists, was discussed; the University had informed that ICAR had disagreed with the proposal; in such circumstances, the State Government had directed the University to take action as per the guidelines of ICAR; Teaching / Research / Extension Associates, working on consolidated salary, were absorbed as Technical Assistants / Senior Techical Assistants with effect from 22.07.1995 as per the decisions of the Board of Management dated 22.07.1995 and 14/15.12.1995; and the Senior Technical Assistants were not working in the University when the guidelines were issued by ICAR on 29.11.1988; in compliance with the order of the Chancellor dated 26.05.2010, and the letter of the Secretary dated 15.07.2010, thirteen Senior Technical Assistants were accorded the designation and pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 (revised pay scale Rs. 15,600-39,100) of Junior Scientists vide office order dated 18.07.2010; the Director, Research had requested various Project Co-ordinators to make budgetary provisions as per the decision to upgrade Senior Technical Assistants to the post of Junior Scientist, but ICAR did not agree to this request of the University; a meeting of the University, and the Government Officers, was held on 02.01.2014; pursuant to the letter dated 23.12.2013 of the Under Secretary, directives were issued to consider absorption of Junior Scientists in the vacant posts giving them one time relaxation; and in a meeting held on 15.04.2014 of the University and the Government Authorities, under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, it was resolved that the pay-scale of Rs. 15600-Rs.39,100 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- could not be granted to Junior Scientists, despite their having been accorded the designation, on account of the disagreement of the funding Agency i.e. ICAR, New Delhi.
The said proposal also talks of the office order dated 04.11.2009 issued by the Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, wherein Senior Technical Assistants were upgraded as Junior Scientists / Assistant Professors, and this upgradation was withdrawn declaring it as illegal; and, since ICAR had not consented to the upgradation of Senior Technical Assistants to the posts of Junior Scientists, and as per the resolution of the Board of Management in its 207th meeting dated 16.10.2008, the Junior Scientists were not getting the upgraded pay-scales.
In its office order dated 01.03.2006, the Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, in view of the directives of the ICAR dated 29.04.1993 to eliminate the post of Senior Technical Assistants and to enable them to be adjusted in the grade of Junior Scientists / Assistant Professor in any manner as deemed fit, had elevated the posts of Senior Technical Assistants, occupied by eight Senior Technical Assistants holding post-graduate degrees in Agricultural Sciences, to the grade of Senior Scientists cum Assistant Professors in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 with effect from 01.03.2006. The office order dated 01.03.2006, of the Birsa Agricultural University, was cancelled by order dated 04.11.2009 wherein reference was made to the meeting of the Board of Management dated 19.10.2009 holding that Senior Technical Assistants were granted promotion illegally to the post of Junior Scientists / Assistant Professors with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of acquiring M.Sc. Degree till the date of joining in the UGC pay-scales, and this was hereby withdrawn.
The Board of Management, in its meeting held on 18.06.2015, examined the proposal for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 to Junior Scientists who were upgraded in the post of Senior Technical Assistants. While taking note of the fact that their resolution dated 16.10.2008 clearly mentioned that the benefit would be allowed under the condition of financial approval of the funding Agency i.e. ICAR, the Board of Management also noted that ICAR, in its letter dated 05.02.2009, did not accede to the upgradation of Senior Technical Assistants to the post of Junior Scientists. The Board of Management, therefore, resolved to declare the earlier resolution dated 16.10.2008 void, and to cancel the orders issued pursuant thereto with immediate effect; and directed that all the facts be mentioned in detail when the cancellation orders were issued. The Board of Management further resolved that these personnel would be eligible to apply for teaching positions, presently advertised by the University, if they fulfilled the prescribed qualifications.
Consequent to resolution No. 207.27 passed by the Board of Management of the respondent-University, the Office Order dated 04.11.2015 was issued cancelling the earlier office orders dated 18.12.2008, 9th January, 2009 and 18.07.2010 whereby seventeen and thirteen Senior Technical Assistants were upgraded as Junior Scientists.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners sought amendment, of the prayer in the writ petition, to include a challenge to the validity of the said proceedings dated 04.11.2015; and the amendment petition was allowed by order dated 27.04.2016.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that various research projects were conceived by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research and were initially funded by them; the ICAR had a tie-up with the State Agricultural Universities including the Universities constituted under the U.P. Agricultural Universities Act, 1958; the petitioners were initially appointed as Research Associates/Teaching Associates/Extension Associates during the period 1983 to 1991; their appointment to these posts was pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent-University inviting applications for appointment to these posts in various research projects funded by the ICAR; since the petitioners were appointed to these posts after a regular process of selection, and on an advertisement being issued inviting applications from all eligible candidates, their appointment, even as research/teaching/extension associates, is in accordance with the extant Rules, and cannot be treated as an ad-hoc appointment; in any event, the petitioners services were regularized, with the prior approval of the finance committee, vide proceeding dated 01.02.1996; the said order dated 01.02.1996 records that the order of regularization would come into effect with retrospective effect from 22.07.1995, and the terms and conditions of service of the petitioners (as Technical Assistants/Senior Technical Assistants) would be governed by the University Rules; at least from 01.02.1996, the petitioners must be held to have become the regular employees of the respondent-University; consequent on their absorption, they ought to have been extended the regular pay-scale applicable to the said posts; the ICAR had informed the respondent-University, vide proceedings dated 20.04.1993, that, after the end of the 7th Five Year Plan, they would not grant any further extension for those employed in the research projects, and the State Agricultural University concerned should explore adjustment of these employees at their level and at their liability; the ICAR had also suggested that the unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants should be upgraded to posts of Assistant Scientist/Assistant Professor; the respondent-University was well aware, when it issued Office Orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, that the pay-scale of Junior Scientist is to be borne by them, and not by the ICAR; while the ICAR had informed the University, as early as in the year 1993, that employees appointed to the posts of Senior Technical Assistant should be upgraded as Junior Scientist, the actual up-gradation was extended by the respondent-University only by orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 (i.e. 15-17 years after the directions of the ICAR); even this up-gradation was without actual payment of the upgraded pay-scales; despite being well aware that ICAR would not provide funds, the respondent-University had, while issuing the said Office Orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, informed that the actual payment would be made only after approval of the ICAR; having extracted work from the petitioners as Junior Scientist for the past decade, it is not open to the respondent-University to now contend that, despite their upgradation, the petitioners would not be entitled for the pay-scale applicable to the posts of Junior Scientists only because the ICAR did not grant approval; the action of the respondent is exploitative in nature; on the ground that the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, their appointment as Junior Scientist had been terminated by order dated 04.11.2015; since the said order has also been subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition, the order dated 04.11.2015 should be set-aside and the petitioners should be extended the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/- as applicable to the post of Junior Scientist; the petitioners are regular employees of the University, and since they are working in the post of Junior Scientist ever since 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 respectively, they are entitled to the pay-scales applicable to the posts of Junior Scientist; except for being granted the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, all other benefits are being extended to the petitioner as is being given to regular employees of the University; the very same issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) Nos.1343 of 2007 and 1117 of 2017; the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 11.09.2012, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in its order in SPLA (C) Nos.18808-18809 of 2013 dated 21.07.2014, had granted such benefits; and this Court may consider passing a similar order as was passed by the Allahabad High Court.
On the other hand Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University, would submit that the petitioners were appointed as Research/Extension/Teaching Associates only in research projects funded by the ICAR; their remuneration, while working in these posts, was funded entirely by the ICAR; even after their services were absorbed as Technical Assistant/Senior Technical Assistants, they were continued to be paid their salary only from the funds, provided by the ICAR, for different research projects; it is not as if the petitioners were misled into believing that they would be extended the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, when the Office Orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 were issued upgrading them as Junior Scientist; both these Office Orders specifically state that, while the petitioners were being upgraded as Junior Scientist and were placed in the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, the actual payment would only be made on obtaining financial approval from the ICAR; ICAR did not grant approval, despite repeated requests by the respondent-University; it is in such circumstances that the University had the matter examined by a High Power Committee; on the basis of the recommendation of the said Committee, the respondent-University had then approached the State Government; after extensive deliberations, the State Government had advised that since ICAR was not willing to accord approval for enhancement of the salary of these employees, the University should act in accordance with the directives of the ICAR; consequently, the order dated 04.12.2015 was issued cancelling the up-gradation and extension of pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-; the doctrine of estoppel has no application since, even while issuing the Office Orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, the University had informed the petitioners that actual payment, of the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, would only be made after approval of the ICAR; it is not as if the petitioners were discharging different duties on their up-gradation as Junior Scientist; they continued to discharge the very same duties as was hitherto discharged by Technical Assistant/Senior Technical Assistants; their claim for enhanced pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/- has no merit, since they were clearly informed that such payment would be made only after approval was granted by the ICAR, which approval was never received by the University; and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) Nos.1343 and 1117 of 2017 dated 11.09.2012, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ICAR, would submit that the stand of the ICAR has been consistent from the inception; the respondent-University was informed repeatedly, prior to 1993, that funding for the posts in research projects would be discontinued at the end of the 7th Five Year Plan; from the beginning of the 8th Five Year Plan, the respondent-University was required to adjust these employees in suitable posts bearing the financial liability of these employees; as the duties and functions discharged by Technical Assistants Scientists/Senior Technical Assistants were similar to those being discharged by Assistant/Junior Scientists/Assistant Professors, ICAR had recommended that these employees be upgraded to these posts; it is not as if the respondent-University was ever informed that the ICAR would bear the financial burden of these employees, even after the end of the 7th Five Year Plan; in case, the respondent-University had any doubt in this regard, they ought to have sought clarification from ICAR before issuing Office Orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, and not thereafter; even after these orders were issued, ICAR had reiterated what it had always held, that the financial burden of these employees would not be borne by the ICAR; and the action of the respondent-University, in now seeking to shift the blame for non-payment of enhanced salary of these employees, to ICAR necessitates rejection.
Despite service of notice on the State Government and several opportunities being given to them for the past more than four years, (Writ Petition (S/B) No.445 of 2014 was filed on 03.12.2014), no counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr Ranjan Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State Government, would submit that, unlike in the case before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court where both ICAR and the University had submitted their recommendations to the State Government, the present case is not one such; in terms of Article 205 of the Constitution of India, no supplementary or additional funds, required to meet the expenditure to be incurred for payment of enhanced pay of the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, would necessitate sanction of the State legislature; and the State Government would be in no position, except with the approval of the State legislature, to provide the funds required to meet this expenditure.
In its order, in Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 1117 of 2007 and 1343 of 2007 dated 11.09.2012, (on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court noted that its jurisdiction was invoked by the petitioners, who were working as Senior Technical Assistants; an interim order was passed directing the Secretary, Government of U.P. to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners keeping in mind the recommendations made by the University and the Circular of the ICAR; the State Government had considered the petitioners' representation, and had rejected the same; and the writ petition was amended to include a challenge to these orders of rejection also.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, thereafter, took note of the definition of the word 'teacher' in Section 2(K) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi and Praudyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act), and held that a person appointed by the University, for the purposes of conducting and guiding research work, was also a teacher in the University; any person, who may be declared by the Statute to be a teacher, was also a teacher; the petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants on ad hoc basis by the Directorate of Research under whom they had been conducting and guiding research work; they were thus covered under Section 2(K) of the 1958 Act; Senior Technical Assistants / Technical Assistants and Research Associates / Senior Research Associates, were performing research work from the laboratory to the field, as well as the work of teaching and extension; the job responsibilities of Technical Assistants were not different from Research Assistants and Technical Assistants; and Senior Technical Assistants, being covered under the definition of Section 2(K) i.e. of a teacher, were entitled for the UGC pay-scales of a teacher. The State was directed to reconsider the petitioners' claim after taking into consideration the observations made in the order. In the light of the aforesaid order, of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the petitioners, who were appointed as Senior Technical Assistants/Technical Assistants, must be held to teachers under Section 2(k) of the 1958 Act, and to be entitled for the UGC pay-scales applicable to such teachers. The petitioners' upgradation as Junior Scientists, by proceedings dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, is in compliance with the directives of the ICAR that the Senior Technical Assistants, who were hitherto working in ICAR funded research projects, should be upgraded and appointed as Assistant Scientists/Associate Professors. Extension of the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the petitioners, by the orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, is because these scales were the UGC scales of pay applicable to an Associate Professor of the University and the directives of ICAR in its proceedings dated 20.04.1993, to the SAUs to adjust the unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants upgrading them as Assistant Scientists/Assistant Professors, were because the UGC pay-scales were those applicable to these upgraded posts. Consequently, in terms of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the petitioners are entitled to be paid the enhanced pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 which is the UGC pay-scales applicable to Assistant/Junior Scientists/Assistant Professors.
It is no doubt true that both the proceedings dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, whereby the petitioners, who were hitherto working as Senior Technical Assistants, were upgraded as Junior Scientists i.e. from the pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9000 to the PRC pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500, records that actual payment of the enhanced pay-scales would only be made after approval is accorded for such payment by the Funding Agency i.e. the ICAR. The doctrine of estoppel may, therefore, not have any application. That does not, however, justify the respondent-University denying the petitioners the benefit of the enhanced pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/- despite having extracted work, of the upgraded post of Junior Scientist, from them for the past several years.
As noted hereinabove ICAR had made it clear by their proceedings dated 20.04.1993, more than fifteen years before the petitioners were upgraded from the post of Senior Technical Assistants to the posts of Junior Scientists, that, after the end of the Seventh Five Year Plan which expired in the year 1990, they would no longer bear the financial burden of payment of salaries of these employees (who were hitherto engaged as Senior Technical Assistants in researched projects funded by ICAR); and the State Agricultural Universities should adjust these unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants upgrading them to the Grade of Assistant Scientists/ Assistant Professors. The posts of Junior Scientists, to which the petitioners were upgraded by proceedings dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, is said to equivalent to the posts of Assistant Scientists which ICAR had, by its proceedings dated 20.04.1993,suggested that the unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants should be upgraded to. It is in compliance with this directive of the ICAR in its proceedings dated 20.04.1993, that the respondent-University (albeit fifteen years thereafter)had issued office order dated 18.12.2008 upgrading seventeen Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists and subsequently by its proceedings dated 18.07.2010, (i.e. seventeen years after the directives of ICAR),had upgraded thirteen more Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists with effect from 18.12.2008 i.e. the date from which the earlier seventeen Senior Technical Assistants were upgraded to these posts; and had also placed these Senior Technical Assistants in the pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500.Despite being well aware that ICAR would not provide any funds for payment of the salaries applicable to the upgraded posts of Junior Scientists, yet the respondent-University stipulated such a condition in its office orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010, leaving the petitioners with little choice but to join the post of Junior Scientists with the hope that they would receive payment of the enhanced salary later.
As noted by the high-powered committee (which was constituted by the Board of Management of the respondent-University), in its meeting held on 16.05.2012, the respondent-University had first designated Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists and had, after issuing the orders of upgradation, sought financial approval of the ICAR which they were well aware would not be granted as ICAR had fifteen years earlier, by its proceedings dated 20.04.1993, made it clear that they would not bear the financial liability of these employees. As has been rightly opined by the High Power Committee the respondent-University should have, in case they wanted financial assistance, informed ICAR before issuing any kind of orders of upgradation. The High Power Committee had, in its minutes dated 16.05.2012, further observed that the respondent-University had designated thirty Senior Technical Assistants as Junior Scientists with effect from 18.12.2008, they were working as Junior Scientists presently, and the Board of Management of the respondent-University should recommend the whole matter to the Government of Uttarakhand for its approval for grant of designation of Junior Scientists, and for extension to them of the higher pay-scales of Rs. 8,000-13,500.
Having extracted the work of Junior Scientists from the petitioners ever since 18.12.2008/18.07.2010, the respondent-University cannot now avoid itself obligation to pay them salary for the duties discharged by them in the uprgraded posts of Junior Scientists, and be heard to contend that they are disentitled because the ICAR had refused financial assistance; and by a mere stroke of the pen cancel the earlier office orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010,seven/five years later, by its proceedings dated 04.11.2015.
There is yet another reason why the respondent-University must be held not to be justified in cancelling its earlier orders whereby the petitioners were upgraded to the post of Junior Scientists. The respondent-University had on its own accord, (and around thirteen years before upgrading them as Junior Scientists with effect from 18.12.2008), absorbed the petitioners in the post of Senior Technical Assistants by its proceedings dated 01.02.1996 with effect from 22.07.1995. The said office order dated 01.02.1996 also stipulated that the terms and conditions of these Senior Technical Assistants would be governed as per the University Rules. In effect, the petitioners became the regular employees of the respondent-University from 22.07.1995 onwards. The consequence of the office order dated 04.11.2015, cancelling the petitioners earlier upgradation as Junior Scientists and thereby denying them the upgraded pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500, is that the petitioners continue to remain as Senior Technical Assistants, in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9000, ever since their absorption as regular employees of the University, with effect from 22.07.1995 i.e. for more than twenty-three years.
An obligation is cast on the respondent-University, which is an instrumentality of the State, to provide avenues of promotion and career growth for its employees. Promotion is a normal incidence of service. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient service and, therefore, it is obligatory to provide promotional avenues. (O.Z. Hussain (Dr) v. Union of India 1990 Supp. SCC 688; State of Tripura & others vs. K.K. Roy (2004) 9 SCC 65).An organization, public or private, does not 'hire a hand', but engages or employs a person. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. He must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (Principles of Personnel Management, Flipo, Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246). Every management must provide realistic opportunities for employees to move upward. 'The organization, that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion, is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.' (Personnel Management, Dr Udai Pareek, p. 277). There cannot be any career planning, manpower development, management development etc., which is not related to a system of promotions. (Council of Scientific and Industries Research & another vs. K.G.S. Bhatt & others (1989) 4 SCC 635 and K.K. Roy (2004) 9 SCC 65).
The respondent-University is obligated to create promotional avenues for its employees, having regard to its constitutional obligations under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot take a stand that, as the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment with their eyes open, they cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. (K.K. Roy (2004) 9 SCC 65).Though an employee of a State has no fundamental right of promotion, he has a right to be considered therefor. What is necessary is to provide an opportunity of advancement; promotion being a normal incidence of service. (Food Corporation of India vs. Parashotam Das Bansal (2008) 5 SCC 100; O.Z. Hussain (Dr) 1990 Supp. SCC 688).
Promotion increases efficiency of the service while stagnation reduces it and makes the service ineffective. It is necessary that there should be an efficient service and, therefore, it was the obligation of the University to provide promotional avenue for its officers. (O.Z.Hussain (Dr) 1990 Supp. SCC 688; Parashotam Das Bansal (2008) 5 SCC 100). Promotion being a condition of service, and having regard to the requirements thereof, it was expected of the University to provide avenues for career growth. (K.K. Roy (2004) 9 SCC 65).
When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospects, Superior Courts have the jurisdiction to issue necessary directions. (Parashotam Das Bansal (2008) 5 SCC 100). If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the jurisdiction to issue directions cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country. (Parashotam Das Bansal (2008) 5 SCC 100).
The respondent-University cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong in issuing proceedings dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 upgrading the petitioners to the posts of Junior Scientists in the pay-scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 even before seeking approval of the ICAR for payment of salaries to them. The respondent-University was obligated to implement the directives of the ICAR, in its proceedings dated 20.04.1993, to adjust the unadjusted Senior Technical Assistants and upgrade them to the Grade of Assistant Scientists / Assistant Professors. While this order of the ICAR dated 20.04.1993 was partly implemented by the respondent-University, that too fifteen years thereafter by its office orders dated 18.12.2008 ad 18.07.2010, they conveniently ignored the other directive of ICAR, in the very same proceedings dated 20.04.1993, that the respondent-University should adjust these unadjusted posts at their own liability, and instead made payment, of the enhanced salary, conditional on financial approval being accorded by the ICAR, which approval, they were aware even fifteen years earlier, was not forthcoming.
Reliance is placed by the respondent-University on the action taken by the Birsa Munda Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, in cancelling its earlier office order dated 01.03.2006 by its subsequent office order dated 04.11.2009. The circumstances, under which the said University had cancelled the benefit of upgradation extended to its Senior Technical Assistants, are not known. It is also not known whether or not those Senior Technical Assistants were absorbed as regular employees of the Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi. In the present case the petitioners were absorbed, by the respondent-University on its own accord, as Senior Technical Assistants with effect from 22.07.1995, and became the regular employees of the respondent-University from that date.
Article 205 of the Constitution of India, on which reliance is placed by the learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State Government, requires approval of the State Legislature for any supplementary or additional expenditure to be incurred beyond the amount authorized under Article 204 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 202(3)(e) any sums required to satisfy any judgment of any Court shall be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated fund of the State. Under Article 203(1) of the Constitution of India, so much of the estimates as relate to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of a State, need not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. It is evident, therefore, that any amount required to be paid, pursuant to an order passed by the Court, need not await a vote of the Legislative Assembly, since it would also be an expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. Except for this contention, which was also raised for the first time during the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, the State Government has neither put forth any other submission nor has it filed its counter affidavit explaining why it chose not to extend the benefit of payment of the higher pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the petitioners herein and had, instead, directed the respondents-University to cancel its earlier orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010.
As work was extracted from them, ever-since they were upgraded as Junior Scientists on 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 respectively, the petitioners cannot be denied payment of the enhanced pay scales applicable to the upgraded posts of Junior Scientists. While we see no justification, in the respondents denying the petitioners the upgraded pay-scale of Junior Scientists of Rs. 8000-13500, we cannot also lose sight of the fact that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the present writ petition, only on 03.12.2014 i.e. nearly six years after they were upgraded with effect from 18.12.2008. We may, therefore, not be justified in fastening the liability of payment of arrears of salary, on the respondent-University, for the period anterior thereto, since the petitioners themselves had kept quiet in the interregnum. While the petitioners shall be extended the benefits of notional increments from the date on which they were upgraded to the post of Junior Scientist i.e. from 18.12.2008, they shall be entitled to arrears of salary, applicable to the upgraded posts of Junior Scientists carrying the higher pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500, only from 01.01.2015 i.e. the month after they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on 03.12.2014.
The order dated 04.12.2015, whereby the earlier office orders dated 18.12.2008 and 18.07.2010 were cancelled, is set-aside. Both the State Government and the respondent-University shall ensure that the exercise of notional fitment of these Junior Scientists, and payment to them of arrears of salary from 01.01.2015, shall be completed and the arrears of salary, and any other benefits to which they may be entitled to, shall be paid to them within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.