Gauhati High Court Grants Relief To Lecturer Denied UGC Pay Scale, Says Minimum Qualification Was Not Mandatory When He Was Regularized

The Gauhati High Court recently granted relief to a retired college lecturer who was denied UGC pay scale holding that the benefit cannot be denied as possession of M.Phil, NET, SLET, or Ph.D qualification was not mandatory on the date of the lecturer's regularization.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Robin Phukan, who observed, “Since possession of M. Phil/NET/SLET/Ph.D. qualification was not a mandatory requirement on 12.11.1993, i.e. the date of regularization of service of the petitioner, then depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the UGC scale of pay from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993, imposing the conditions that the petitioner– (a) will have to obtain M. Phil or Ph. D. degree within 8(eight) years from the date of approval of his appointment; and (b) will not be eligible to draw senior scale of pay/Grade of pay until fulfills the conditions laid down in the letter, to the considered opinion of this Court, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same warrants interference of this court.”

The order was passed in a civil writ petition, according to the factual matrix of which, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi at A.D.P. College, Nagaon, and his service was regularised with effect from 1993. However, while granting approval, the authorities imposed conditions requiring him to obtain an M.Phil or Ph.D qualification within a fixed time and withheld entitlement to UGC scale benefits until he fulfilled those requirements. The petitioner was eventually granted the UGC scale only from August 2009 after obtaining an M.Phil degree.

It was the petitioner's case that other lecturers in a similar position had been granted the UGC scale from the date of their appointment or regularisation and that denying him the same treatment amounted to discriminatory action.

The authorities contended that the UGC scale could not be extended to the petitioner from 1993 as he did not possess the minimum qualification at that time, and further stated that those who had received similar benefits earlier had been wrongly granted them.

While examining the record, the Court noted, “nowhere in their affidavit the respondent No.3 had admitted that they have wrongly given the benefit to Smt. Aparna Tamuli and Pratibha Choudhury.”

The Court also recorded that on the date of the petitioner's regularisation, it was not mandatory to possess M.Phil, NET, SLET, or Ph.D qualifications, and this position was reflected in official memoranda issued by the State.

The Court further held, “In that view of the matter, treating the petitioner differently on the ground of the condition being imposed in his appointment letter by the respondent authorities and denying the benefits to him from the date of his regularization, appears to be arbitrary and illegal.”

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the Court directed, “In the result, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his regularization, i.e. 12.11.1993.”

Case No.: WP(C) No. 4151/2017

Case Title: Md. Ohiduz Zaman vs. State of Assam & Ors.

Click Here To Read Judgement