G S Tayal vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

,,

1.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-,,

“PRAYER,,

(1)It is respectfully submitted that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to admit the writ petition in the interest of the justice.,,

(2)Your Lordship be pleased to order to pay the arrears of enhanced salary w.e.f 01/01/1996 and to grant annual increment w.e.f. 01/04/1996 at par,,

with his counterpart, i.e Mrs. V.B. Vohra Assistant Finance Officer, and thereafter on 1st April of each consequent year till the retirement, with",,

consequential retirement benefits such as revised gratuity, leave encashment, pension etc with 24% annual interest, on amount due w.e.f 1/1/1996;",,

(3) The cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.â€​,,

2.The facts as noted from the writ petition are, that the Jawaharlal Nehru University (‘JNU’ in short) was established n the year 1969. There",,

were three cadres Ministerial staff, Secretarial Staff and Accounts staff. The petitioner was appointed as LDC, which was in the Ministerial staff. On",,

qualifying the examination conducted by the respondent University, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant. After a gap of time, the respondent",,

University conducted written examination for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and on qualifying the same, the petitioner was promoted as",,

Senior Assistant with effect from March 17, 1975 in the pay scale of `425-800/-. It is the case of the petitioner that his counterpart Mrs. V.B. Vohra,",,

who was in the Accounts cadre, was promoted as Assistant and thereafter Senior Assistant with effect from June 18, 1975 in the same pay scale of",,

`425-800/-. Later on, both of them were promoted as Section Officer in their respective cadre in the pay scale of `650-1200/-, which was later",,

converted to `800-1350/-.,,

3.It is averred, in the year 1991, the University abolished the cadre system and merged all the aforesaid three cadres into one cadre i.e General cadre.",,

After the merger of cadres, the petitioner and Mrs. Vohra were granted second ACP in the pay scale of `3000-5000/- and were designated as",,

Assistant Registrar (Desk)/Assistant Finance Officer (Desk)/ Administrative Officer (Desk). The pay scale was revised to `10000-325-15200/- in,,

terms of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendation. It is averred that because of merger of the cadres into one cadre, anomaly had accrued,",,

inasmuch as some of the senior secretariat staff members made representation that they being senior, were drawing less pay than the Ministerial",,

staff/Accounts staff. The University considered the representation and granted the erstwhile Secretarial staff pay parity i.e stepping up of the pay of,,

19 secretarial staff at par with the respective counterparts of Ministerial staff/Accounts staff with effect from January 01, 1996 in the then scale of",,

`10000-325-15200/-. It is averred that the payment of arrears of the enhanced salary was made to them.,,

4.The Senior Assistants like the petitioner herein who were promoted as Section Officer also made representations and their demand was accepted,,

and their pay was stepped up vide notification dated December 10, 2004 with effect from January 01, 1996 in the, the then pay scale of `10000-325-",,

15200/-. The pay parity granted to the petitioner is not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner, the enhanced salary was not made to the petitioner",,

and other staff Members. Despite representations to grant him revised salary consequent upon pay parity with effect from January 01, 1996 and",,

release of increments at par with the counterparts and other retirement benefits, the same was not acceded to. It appears, there was some audit",,

objection with regard to the benefit of pay parity granted to the Senior Assistants, who were promoted as Section Officers like the petitioner herein.",,

Be that as it may, again on April 06, 2010, Executive Council of the University brought out a resolution, whereby it was decided that in case of those,",,

who have retired prior to December 03, 2004 and covered under a decision but not drawn the pay with pay parity benefits may also be paid enhanced",,

pension on the notional pay admissible to them with pay parity. It was also decided that the employees covered under the pay parity decision and,,

retired/retiring after the date of decision may be allowed pension and other retirement benefits on the pay actually drawn at the time of retirement in,,

terms of pension Rules. It was made clear that the financial effect of the decision shall accrue from the date of approval of the Vice Chancellor i.e,,

December 03, 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that his fundamental rights have been violated, inasmuch as the petitioner having granted pay parity",,

with effect from January 01, 1996 is entitled to the actual benefit thereof.",,

5.Another grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the retention of his date of increment at par with his counterpart Mrs. V.B. Vohra consequent,,

upon grant of pay parity with financial benefits with retrospective effect i.e January 01, 1996. According to the petitioner, he was drawing annual",,

increment with effect from April 01, 1995. On fixation of his pay in Fifth Pay Commission with effect from January 01, 1996, the petitioner was",,

allowed to earn annual increment with effect from April 01, 1996 and continued to earn increment on 1st April of each year till his retirement in 2004.",,

It is his case that consequent upon grant of pay parity with Mrs. V.B. Vohra with effect from January 01, 1996 in 5th CPC vide notification dated",,

December 10, 2004 in the pay scale of `10000-325-15200-, Mrs. Vohra was allowed to draw increment on April 01, 1996. In fact, it is his case that",,

she continued to draw annual increment on 1st April every consequent year, whereas the date of increment of the petitioner has been changed by the",,

University from April 01, 1996 to January 01, 1997. The effect thereof is that Mrs. Vohra was drawing more pay on April 01, 1996 than him. He also",,

states, the grant of annual increment to him with effect from January 01, 1996 debarred him the benefit of qualifying service rendered by him w.e.f",,

April 01, 1995 to December 31, 1995 and raised a disparity between him and Mrs. Vohra. It is averred that the Private Secretaries/PA’s, who",,

were granted pay parity with their counterparts in the Ministerial staff/Accounts staff have been allowed the same date of increment as their,,

counterpart, so as to maintain pay parity. He pleads discrimination in this regard. 6. On the other hand, the respondent’s stand, in its counter",,

affidavit is that the Senior Personal Assistant / Private Secretaries represented that many of their juniors in the Senior Assistant/Assistant stream,,

superseded their counterparts in the Stenographer stream and requested, they may be given pay parity with their junior counterparts in the Senior",,

Assistant cadre. Therefore, an administrative decision was taken by the Vice Chancellor on September 24, 1997, that Senior Personal Assistants and",,

Private Secretaries be given the benefit of qualifying service while considering their cases for grant of upward movement vis-a-vis their counterparts,,

in the University and this benefit shall be extended for the limited purpose of their placement in the next upward movement. Accordingly, 19 Private",,

Secretaries/Senior Personal Assistants were given the benefit of pay parity with their counterparts in the Senior Assistant cadre. As a consequence of,,

this decision, several representations were received from the staff Members pointing out anomalies in pay at the level of Senior Assistant and Section",,

Officers with the Private Secretaries/Personal Assistants, who were junior to them in the combined cadre of Senior Assistants/ Personal Assistants",,

and SO/PS started drawing higher pay and therefore they demanded that their pay may also be stepped up at par with them. The issue was examined,,

by the University and the Vice Chancellor vide order dated December 03, 2004 decided to",,

(i)approve the grant of pay parity to 12 Section Officers, vide notification dated December 10, 2004 subject to the condition that the pay of the",,

affected staff Members shall be stepped up at par with the juniors w.e.f January 01, 1996 but the financial benefit of pay parity shall be extended only",,

w.e.f the date of approval by the Vice Chancellor i.e December 03, 2004;",,

(ii)the employees, who have already retired from the University’s service shall be given the revised enhanced pension w.e.f the date of approval",,

i.e December 03, 2004. For the remaining retirement benefits, they shall have to wait for finalization of pay scales of all the employees of the",,

University. It appears that there was some observation of the internal audit section of the University. It is stated by the respondent that the University,,

Grants Commission has desired that the conditions attached at the timeof grant of pay parity to 12 Section Officers including the petitioner may also be,,

treated as fulfilled and the retirement benefits of those Section Officers, who were granted pay parity may also be regulated accordingly. The case",,

of the 12 SectionOfficers was placed before the Executive Council, which in its decision on April 06, 2010 has decided as under:-",,

“(i)The employees covered under the pay parity decision and retiring after the date of decision i.e 3.12.2004 may be allowed pension and other,,

Pay,G.S. Tayal,V.B. Vohra

10000- 15200,"O n parity 11,300 (w.e.f

01.01.1996)",11300 (01.01.1996)

,"N o increment granted w.e.f

01.04.1996",Rs.11625/- (w.e.f 01.04.1996)

,Pay on 01.01.1997 Rs.11625/-,

Note: Mrs. V.B. Vohra started drawing higher pay w.e.f 01.04.1996,,