AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—1. The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext. P19 which refused him comparable scale of pay when modification and pay revision were effected to the pay scale enjoyed by the petitioner.
The petitioner, admittedly, was a Public Relations Officer, who was re-designated as Director, Public Relations and Publications (herein after ''Director''). It is seen from Ext. P7 that there were other duties and responsibilities also assigned to the post of Director. The petitioner made an application for revision of scale of pay, to the Syndicate, consequently on re-designation of the post and on assigning additional duties and responsibilities. The Syndicate, as is evident from Ext. P7 order dated 03.12.2005, granted the scale of pay of Rs. 12,600 - 15,800 considering the re-designation of the post with additional duties and responsibilities.
The said scale of pay granted to the petitioner was one applicable to the post of Joint Registrar. The petitioner, on the basis of Ext. P10, would contend that the Officers, in the "cadre of Joint Registrar" would be given identical scale of pay as applicable to the Joint Registrar. The petitioner placing reliance on Ext. P10 would raise a contention that the Directors'' post was equated with that of the Joint Registrars''. The Government, at the first stage, objected to such equation of posts and rejected the same by Ext. P11. This was pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, to consider the representation of the petitioner, when the very same dispute arose at the time of implementation of the 9th Pay Revision. Later, by Ext. P12, the Government agreed to assign the revised scale of pay of Rs. 40,640 - 57,440, specifically to the incumbent in the post, i.e., to the petitioner, making it clear that the same would not be applicable on the retirement of the petitioner and a fresh hand being appointed thereon. The audit objection on this count also is seen to have been not pursued by the Accountant General, as is indicated in paragraph XVIII of Ext. P14.
There was a modification to the scale of pay of the Joint Registrars, made by the Government as per Ext. P15, by which the existing scale of pay of Rs. 40,640- 57,440 was modified to Rs. 44,640 - 58,640. The petitioner claims that the said modification has to be granted to the petitioner, since the petitioner is deemed to be in the "cadre of Joint Registrar". On the 10th Pay Revision recommendations being implemented the petitioner should be given the comparable scale being Rs. 85,000 - 1,17,600, indicated at Ext. R1(d) as applicable to the Joint Registrars, is the argument.
The University and the Government, however, oppose the claim on the ground that the petitioner''s post was never considered as equivalent to the post of Joint Registrar and he was merely granted the scale of pay of Joint Registrar, on his request, considering the fact that there were additional duties assigned to him on re-designation of the post. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the educational qualifications and the mode of appointment of Joint Registrar, distinguishes the post of a Director, from that of a Joint Registrar. It is also submitted that the post available is only of a Public Relations Officer, which has a considerably lower scale of pay. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no order as of now equating the post of Joint Registrar to the post of Director, Public Relations and Publications.
The grounds now raised by the learned Government Pleader, are the very same grounds on which the petitioner was refused continuance in the higher scale by Ext. P11, which was given short shrift by Ext. P12. This Court, on examination of the documents, cannot, but say that it is quite surprising that the petitioner, a Public Relations Officer, was granted a pay scale, which at that point of time was comparable to that of a Joint Registrar. This was against the very creation of the post and re-designation made by the Syndicate, at Ext. P5, stipulating that the re-designation of the post was without any additional financial commitment on the University. Even then, on the petitioners representation, the Syndicate permitted a higher pay scale. The Government objected to the re-designation and the higher scale, initially, but, later approved it. Having approved a scale of pay the question is whether the petitioner, on revision of scales of pay effected all over, could be denied such benefits.
The Directors'' post has been granted the higher scale of pay by the Syndicate and the Government has approved it during the petitioner''s tenure alone, against their own earlier decisions. The University and the Government then, has opposed the claim before this Court; which is against the orders passed by them granting the benefit to the petitioner. This is a classic case where the functionaries of the University as also the Government act detrimentally to the interests of the State, the public body and the polity, and then vainly contest and challenge their own wisdom.
Herein, a re-designation was made and a Public Relations Officer was designated as a Director, specifically without any financial burden created. Then, the Syndicate considers a representation made and grants a scale of pay twice above that of the Public Relations Officer. The reason stated is of additional duties, as is evidenced from Ext. P6. This Court does not see any onerous responsibility having been cast on the petitioner, which, in normal course, would not be assigned to a Public Relations Officer. The Government objected to it initially, but, follows suit later, for no justifiable reason. Then when the beneficiary claims a comparable revision, the authorities cry hoarse of additional financial burden, which they themselves created. Public accountability is lacking and often the Courts are faced with such situations where its hands are tied since the orders issued by the Executive create vested rights on individuals.
The order by which the pay scale was granted i.e Ext. P7, does not equate the post of Director to that of a Joint Registrar. The Syndicate, considering the re-designation of the post and also the additional duties and responsibilities, merely granted the scale of pay of Rs. 12,600 - 15,800 which, at that point of time, was applicable to the Joint Registrars. There can be no reliance placed on Ext. P10 also, since the decision of the Syndicate, on the grievances in connection with the 8th Pay Revision Commission, only was to the effect that Officers in the "cadre of Joint Registrars" should be given the scale of pay as applicable to the Joint Registrars. There being no specific order, either of the Syndicate or the Government, that there is an equation of posts and that the post of Director is comprised in the "cadre of Joint Registrars", the petitioner can claim no equation to the "cadre of Joint Registrars".
In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot also claim modified pay scale as granted by the Government to the Joint Registrars as per Ext. P15. As per Ext. P15, it is seen that the pay scale applicable to the petitioner, which was allowed by the Syndicate on the re-designation of post, is one modified and granted to the Deputy Registrars. The petitioner having not been reckoned for such modification of pay scales, specifically in the post of Director, there can be no claim for modification as per Ext. P15. The petitioner has been granted the scale by the Syndicate presumably as a measure of mitigation for assigning additional responsibilities. The petitioner would only be entitled to be continued on that personal pay assigned.
On the 10th Pay Revision being implemented, the petitioner, on the same reasoning, cannot claim the same revision as applicable to Joint Registrars, since it has already been found that there is no equation of post of Joint Registrar and Director, Public Relations and Publications. When the 10th Pay Revision is implemented, the petitioner would have to be granted revision in the comparable scales. The pay scale sanctioned to the post by the Syndicate and allowed by the Government to the incumbent as per Ext. P12 is Rs. 40,640 - 57,440, which stands revised as per Ext. R1 (d) to Rs. 77,400 - 1,15,200/-. Ext. R1(d) also, though with reference to "Systems Manager", says so ''The incumbents on personal scale are eligible for the scale of pay as far as these posts are concerned''. The Government, hence, permitted persons continuing on personal scales to be continued with respect to one post. The petitioner too, having been permitted such personal pay by Ext. P12, cannot now be discriminated. The petitioner would have to be granted such pay scale on revision and there can be no equation of the petitioner''s cadre, either to the post of Joint Registrar or to the post of Deputy Registrar. The pay scale of the petitioner shall be fixed in the comparable scale to which the scale now enjoyed by the petitioner has been fixed. The benefits due to the petitioner shall be paid within a reasonable time, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No Costs.