S. Vincent vs The State of Tamilnadu, The Directorate of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Tamil Nadu and The Correspondent, Nessamani Memorial Christian College

P.K. Misra, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the order dated

19.10.1995 of the UGC and G.O. Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985 after deletion of para 9 of the said G.O., and G.O. Ms. No. 524 dated

18.3.1983 and consequently fix the scale of pay of the petitioner in the post of Asst. Physical Director in the scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from

1.4.1980 as per G.O.Ms.Mo.393 dated 16.4.1985 and to pay all arrears of salary.

The case of the petitioner is as follows :-

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Physical Director under the third respondent College by order dated 22.11.1972 in the scale of Rs.325-15-

The State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 524 dated 18.3.1983 had accepted the recommendation relating to payment of UGC pay scale to

Physical Directors/Instructors of Physical Education. As per the said G.O., the respondents should have fixed the scale of pay of the petitioner in

the scale of Rs.700 - 1600. However, they had failed to do so, possibly on the assumption that the post of Assistant Physical Director was not a

sanctioned post. According to case of the petitioner, the Registrar of Madurai University has already issued orders in 1972 laying down that the

Colleges having strength of more than 500 students could appoint Assistant Physical Director and the petitioner had been appointed only on the

aforesaid basis. Subsequently, the State Government issued another G.O., namely, G.O. Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985, on the very same

subject. However, as per paragraph 9 of the said G.O., Physical Directors were left out on an erroneous assumption that they need not be brought

within the purview of the Order prescribing scale of pay for the Physical Directors and on the basis of the said G.O., implementation of UGC Scale

to the petitioner was also denied. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was discharging the very same duty as that of the Director of Physical

Education and he should not have been discriminated by denying UGC scale of pay which is applicable to others. Several representations were

made by the petitioner, but to no avail. It has been further indicated by him that he was appointed as Physical Director after the retirement of the

incumbent by order dated 8.6.1996 in the scale of Rs.2,200 - 4,000. It is his case that he should have been fixed in the revised UGC Scale of

Rs.700 -1600 with effect from 1.4.1980 and on that footing he is entitled to all the arrears.

A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. In the counter affidavit it is indicated that there was no post of

Assistant Physical Director in the third respondent College and only one post of Director of Physical Education and one post of Physical Instructor

were sanctioned. The petitioner was appointed as Physical Instructor and his pay was fixed as per the Tamil Nadu Pay Commission Scales of Pay

and he was not entitled to UGC scale of pay. It has been further indicated that according to G.O. Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985, the Physical

Training Instructors who were then in the scale of pay of Rs.350-10-420-15-600 were not brought under the UGC scale of pay and hence the

petitioner cannot claim that his pay ought to have been fixed in the UGC scale as per G.O.Ms. No. 524 dated 18.3.1983. It has been indicated

that subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985 was on the basis of the recommendation made by the Director of Collegiate Education and

such G.O., was in partial modification of the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 524 dated 18.3.1983 and as per paragraph 9 of G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated

16.4.1985, Physical Training Instructors have not been brought under UGC Scale of pay.

G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985, which specifically lays down UGC scale of pay need not be made applicable to Physical Instructors, has

not been specifically challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that his pay scale in UGC Scale of pay should have been fixed as Assistant

Physical Director and he has claimed that all arrears should be paid. It is not disputed that subsequently the petitioner had been promoted as

Physical Director and thereafter his scale of pay was fixed and paid in accordance with the existing UGC scales of pay. In essence, the claim

relates to applicability of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner for the past period during 1980''s and 1990''s. It is of course true that the petitioner

has made representations earlier, however, the petitioner had kept quiet for a long period and the writ petition has been filed only in 1998 and even

in such writ petition, prayer is for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the scale in the post of Assistant Physical Director,

whereas, as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, his appointment had been confirmed as a Physical Instructor. Whether as a Physical

Instructor the petitioner was entitled to UGC scale of pay or not also is not a matter agitated here as the applicability of UGC scale of pay to the

Physical Instructor has been specifically declined in G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated 16.4.1985, which has not been challenged.

In such background, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted and it is apparent that the writ petition is hit by the principles of

laches. Filing of repeated representations is not contemplated and if the representation of the petitioner, which was made in 1987 or soon

thereafter, was not favourably considered, the petitioner should have agitated his grievance at that time. In such view of the matter, the writ petition

is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.