IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 21788 of 2005(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ DR.N.RAMANUJAN, S/O.DR.P.N.NARAYANAN, READER IN ZOOLOGY, (RETIRED FROM SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, KOLLAM), RESIDING AT INDUSREE, PATTATHANAM EAST, KOLLAM-21. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADURSHAH ZAFARMARG, NEW DELHI-110002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN R4 ADVS. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21788 of 2005(R) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(P) 171/99.EDN. DATED 21.12.1999. EXT.P2. COPY OF G.O. (P) 44/2001/H.EDN. DATED 29.3.2001. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 10.2.05 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2003 IN W.P.(C) NO.23870/2003 FILED BY DR.R.SARASWATHYKUTTY AMMA. EXT.P5. COPY OF LETTER NO.F1/UGC/7192/03 DT. 31.1.2005 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT' EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2003 IN OP NO.32727/2001 FILED BY DR.P.V.RAMAKUTTY. EXT.P7. COPY OF LETTER NO.29656/C3/2003/H.EDN. DT. 23.11.2004 BY THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P8. COPY OF JUDGMENT DT. 17.3.2005 IN W.P.(C) 8474/2005 EXT.P9. COPY OF LETTER NO.11658/D.1/0/H.EDN. DT. 21.5.2005 BY THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.1.1996 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ................................................. W.P(C) NO.21788 OF 2005 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined Sree Narayana College as Lecturer in Zoology with effect from 7.6.1965. He was subsequently promoted as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 1.7.1984. While so, in 1985, the petitioner acquired Ph.D. He was later promoted as Reader with effect from 30.3.1990 and retired from service on 31.3.1996. Ext.P1 is a Government Order implementing UGC Scheme, in which clause 6.18 and 6.19 reads as follows:- “6.18 : A Lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader. 6.19 : A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires as Ph.D degree in her/his service career.” 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation claiming benefit of two advance increments on the ground of having acquired Ph.D. That was rejected by Ext.P9 order. The W.P(C) NO.21788 OF 2005 2 relevant portion of Ext.P9 reads as under:- “Government have examined your request in detail in compliance of judgment and with reference to the rule in force in this regard and found that there is no provision to sanction advance increments to College teachers who have acquired Ph.D before 1.1.1996. Moreover, Ph.D is a compulsory requirement for the post of 'Reader' and increments as requested is not admissible to teachers who are recruited/promoted to the post for which Ph.D is an essential qualification. Hence your request is rejected. The Ext.P3 representation is disposed of accordingly.” It is challenging Ext.P9, this writ petition is filed. 3. Although, the learned Government Pleader contested the claim of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is for the reason that a similar claim has already been upheld by this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.32727/2001. In that judgment, contentions have been dealt with. Paragraph-3 of the said judgment reads as under:- “3. I heard both sides. A person who happened to acquire higher qualification earlier is being penalised by denying the benefits due to him by this order and his colleagues who happened to acquire it later are being rewarded by granting increments with effect from the date of acquisition W.P(C) NO.21788 OF 2005 3 of the Ph.D. This plain discrimination cannot stand scrutiny in the light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Ph.D holders are given a particular benefit. The persons who acquired Ph.D before 01.01.1996 are excluded from it. Thus, the said classification of Ph.D holders eligible for advance increments suffers from the vice of under inclusiveness. Accordingly, it is declared that the clause in Ext.P14 that those who acquired Ph.D before 01.01.1996 will be eligible for two advance increments only from 27.7.1998 is unconstitutional. It is declared that those who passed Ph.D before 01.01.1996 are also eligible to get two advance increments with effect from 01.01.1996. The Original Petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to pass consequential orders in the light of the declaration made herein above within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the light of the orders passed by them, the 1st respondent shall take consequential action to extend the benefits arising out of those orders to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even with effect from 27.07.1998, the two advance increments have not been released to him. If that be so, respondents 1 and 4 shall take appropriate action to redress the grievance of the petitioner in this regard within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 4. Ext.P7 order shows that the Government have accepted the judgment and extended the benefit also. Ext.P4 is another judgment rendered by this Court in O.P.No.23870/2003. These judgments have become final and having regard to the W.P(C) NO.21788 OF 2005 4 similarities of the facts there is no reason to adopt a different course. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9 order calls for interference. In the above circumstance, the 2nd respondent is directed to extend the benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner and to pass consequential orders in the light of the above and extend the benefit of advance income as contemplated in Ext.P1. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dmb