Benefits Accorded To One Cadre Won’t Accrue To Other Unless So Specified In Relevant Scheme Framed By Employer: SC
The Supreme Court held that the benefits accorded to one would not accrue to the other unless so specified in the relevant scheme, as may be framed by the employer whether State Government or University.
The Court held thus in a batch of appeals preferred against the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the appeals were dismissed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed, “Till the time, the CAS as a scheme had not been interfered with, it was not proper for the learned Single Judge to interpret the same in a way which would obliterate the distinction between the two separate cadres. We may also add that had the intention been that everybody comes on the same platform and gets all subsequent benefits, there was no requirement of having/maintaining two cadres. Further, there was no need for this Court to clarify that the re-designatees and direct appointees would have separate identities, if for all practical purposes, no distinction was to be made either on facts or in law. However, this Court clarified that there would be a segregation as the two cadres would remain, which is indicative of a difference between the two. Ipso facto, benefits accorded to one would not accrue to the other unless so specified in the relevant Scheme, as may be framed by the employer i.e., State Government/University.”
The Bench said that if the two cadres are given exactly similar benefits under orders of the Court, then it would amount to doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly.
AOR Pratibha Jain represented the appellants while AOR Bankey Bihari represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The respondents (54 in number) were appointed as Research Assistants in the erstwhile University of Udaipur, renamed as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University and later on, post-bifurcation, named as the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner (appellant). In 1977, the appellant proceeded to designate the respondents as Lecturers in terms of a notification where the term ‘Junior Lecturer’ was substituted by the term ‘Lecturer’. It was notified that teachers holding the post of Junior Lecturers or equivalent post are designated as Lecturers. Consequently, the respondents were designated as Lecturers and they were also designated as Assistant Professors later on and began drawing the same pay-scale as admissible to other Lecturers/Asst. Profs.
The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education vide communication, decided to implement a Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to make the revision of pay-scale of teachers in Universities and Colleges from 1986. However, it was decided that persons appointed as Assistant Professors directly, will rank senior to the Lecturers/Research Assistants, so designated as Assistant Professors. Hence, the same was implemented and the appellant notified Rules for implementing CAS for Assistant Professors in the University. Later, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan wrote a letter requesting the appellant to amend the Resolution of the Board.
It was further requested that the benefit of CAS be extended only to those Assistant Professors, who were directly selected after regular selection by the SSC and not to those who were designated as Assistant Professors. The recommendations which were made by the University as well as by the Board were, thus, not accepted by the State Government. Hence, the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers and later re-designated as Assistant Professors were deprived of the benefit of the CAS. The respondents preferred writ petitions assailing such action(s) and the Single Judge allowed their writ petitions which was affirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, this was challenged before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case remarked, “It is held that the writ petitioners/private respondents are not entitled to benefits under the CAS, as notified by the Government of India vide Letter dated 22.07.1988.”
The Court further clarified that to direct for any recovery of monies which may have already been disbursed to the respondents would amount to inequity at this late stage and hence, the same shall not be recovered, but all the pay and emoluments for the purposes of retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits shall be reckoned notionally without granting any benefit under the CAS.
“Assuming that the respondents are otherwise entitled to any benefit under any other Scheme/Policy, it is directed that the State Government or the appellant will not deprive the respondents thereof by virtue of the instant judgment alone. …. Notably, the State Government vide its Letter dated 20.09.1994, had specifically clarified that the period of ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents/Assistant Professors shall not be counted for giving benefit of senior pay-scale under the CAS. We have already elaborated supra10 that the CAS is essentially a policy, and as such, the respondents cannot claim, nor would they have any vested right for claiming that the clauses therein be interpreted in a particular manner. Such an interpretative exercise would have to be left, in the domain of the appellant, subject to the State Government’s directives unless patently perverse or arbitrary”, it added.
The Court, therefore, said that the High Court was not justified in counting of the ad-hoc service rendered by the respondents for reckoning the period of computation as required for applying the CAS. However, it directed that there shall not be any recoveries made from the respondents.
“The respondents shall be entitled to the notional benefit of the pay and emoluments for purposes of calculating their retiral/service conditions and for post-retiral benefits, but without grant of any benefit under the CAS. It is clarified that if the respondents are entitled to benefits under CAS after reckoning eight years of service from the date(s) of their regular appointment or to benefits under any other Scheme/Policy, the State Government or the appellant shall not deny such an advantage to them by virtue of this judgment alone”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeals and quashed the orders of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner v. Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 581)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Pratibha Jain, Advocates Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Mann Arora, Akriti Sharma, and Harsh Jain.
Respondents: AOR Bankey Bihari, Advocates Manu Mridul, Pratap Singh Rawat, Priyanka Tyagi, AOR Surya Kant, Advocates Ram Niwas, Nikhil Jain, and Divya Jain.
