Assistant Professors Absorbed Into Cadre Entitled To Same Advance Increments As Direct Recruits: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court has held that Assistant Professors absorbed into the cadre are entitled to the same advance increments as directly recruited Assistant Professors and cannot be discriminated against merely because they acquired PHD or MPhil qualifications while in service.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha observed that once teachers enter the cadre of Assistant Professors, their mode of entry whether through absorption or regular recruitment loses significance for determining their service benefits.

“In our opinion, the UGC and the State have tried to create an artificial distinction, which has no logic or justification. There is no reason why the Asst. Professors cannot be given the benefit of five advance increments if they are PHD holders and two advance increments if they have an MPhil.

In our opinion, Asst. Professors who acquired higher qualification of Ph.D during service and those who possessed that before their recruitment form one class of teachers. To create a distinction between the two based on how they became Asst. Professors or when they secured the Ph.D, smacks of arbitrariness and is discriminatory. This distinction is based on an un-intelligible differentia and has no nexus with the object i.e., to achieve excellence of education.”

The Court made these observations while allowing appeals filed by teachers who were initially appointed as part time contractual teachers in Government Degree Colleges in Tripura and were subsequently absorbed as Assistant Professors under a State Government scheme framed in 2022.

The appellants had acquired PHD and MPhil qualifications while working as Post Graduate Teachers. However, the State Government granted them only three advance increments for PHD holders and one increment for MPhil holders under its memorandum dated August 4, 2023.

Challenging the decision, the teachers contended that under the State Government notification dated December 27, 2019 read with the UGC Regulations, 2018, they were entitled to five advance increments for PHD holders and two for MPhil holders.

The State Government opposed their claim arguing that the appellants had not undergone the regular recruitment process through the Tripura Public Service Commission and had acquired their higher qualifications while already in service.

Rejecting the contention of State, High Court observed that acquiring higher academic qualifications during service cannot be treated as some disqualification for granting corresponding advance increments.

The High Court noted that acquiring PHD and MPhil qualifications enhances teachers professional competency and contributes to maintaining standards in higher education. It further held that Assistant Professors who acquired these qualifications during service and those who possessed them before recruitment form one class of teachers.

"Once they come into the cadre of Asst. Professors, whether by absorption or by recruitment, their birth mark in cadre loses significance and the former cannot be treated inferior to the latter and given lesser service benefits," the High Court observed.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam (1980) 1 SCC 634 and Union of India v. Atul Shukla (2014) 10 SCC 432, the Court reiterated that employees belonging to the same cadre cannot be subjected to differential treatment merely because of their source of recruitment.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment and directed the State Government to grant five non compoundable advance increments to PHD holders and two such increments to MPhil holders from the respective dates of their absorption as Assistant Professors.

The State was further directed to pay the differential amounts within eight weeks and refund any amounts already recovered from the appellants within the same period.

Counsels for Appellants: Arijit Bhaumik and Ishpa Chakma, Advocates.

Counsels for Respondents: Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate.