Supreme Court Raps VC & Registrar Of Garhwal Central University For Failing To Treat Substantively Appointed Teachers At Par With Regularly Appointed Teachers

The Supreme Court recently rapped the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of Garhwal Central University on their failure to treat the teachers who were substantively appointed at par with regularly appointed teacher for the purpose of pay scale and notional consequential benefits. While granting one more opportunity to comply with the order dated September 3, 2021 the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar in their order said, "We make it clear that once there was a positive direction to comply with the order within the specified period, the authorities are duty bound to comply, failing which their action may be treated to be deliberate disobedience and this Court may take cognizance of alleged contempt of the order of this Court." Refusing to accept the reason put forth by University's counsel with regards to non compliance of the judgement, Court had said, "Before we proceed with the matter any further, consider it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the respondents to make necessary compliance in terms of the order of this Court, failing which appropriate action may be taken for their alleged disobedience." The Top Court had rendered this observation while considering a contempt petition preferred against its order dated September 3, 2021 by which the Top Court had said, "The appellants shall be treated to be substantively appointed teachers(Associate Professor/Assistant Professor) and members of service of the Central University, namely, HNB Garhwal University for all practical purposes, entitled for a pay scale and notional consequential benefits admissible to a regularly appointed teacher in the service of the Central University under the Act 2009." Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi had also observed that the employee is not estopped from questioning terms and condition of employment at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved. It was also observed that it is not open for a person appointed in public employment to ordinary choose the terms and conditions of which he is required to serve. "It goes without saying that the employer is always in a dominating position and it is open to the employer to dictate the terms of employment. The employee who is at the receiving end can hardly complain of arbitrariness in the terms and conditions of employment. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that if an employee takes initiation in questioning the terms and conditions of employment, that would cost his/her job itself.. The bargaining power is vested with the employer itself and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by the authority. If that being the reason, it is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved," the court said. Case Title: Somesh Thapliyal & Ors v Annpurna Nautiyal & Ors| CONMT.PET.(C) No. 56-59/2022 in C.A. No. 3922-3925/2017 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Raps VC & Registrar Of Garhwal Central University For Failing To Treat Substantively Appointed Teachers At Par With Regularly Appointed Teachers

Shruti Kakkar

Tags