WP(C) 5561/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioner, in essence, entreats for an appropriate writ to the State respon dents for according him the benefit of UGC scale of pay w.e.f 01.04.1992. His s ervices, in the meantime, however, have been regularized w.e.f 15.07.2003, grant ing him the revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 8000/- to 13,5000/- per month. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, contending the same t o be against the letter and spirit of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2002 pa ssed by this Court in WA No. 457/1999. 02. I have heard Mr. AS Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R Ali, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam, for the official respondents. 03. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a Gr aduate in Arts with Hons. in Assamese. He had also passed MA in Assamese (Group B) in the year 1977 securing 46.1% marks. He also has acquired the Post Gradua te degree in Assamese (Group A) in the year 1985-86, from the Gauhati University securing 53.4% marks. The result of this examination was published on 05.12.19 88. 04. The Nalbari Commerce College (hereafter for short referred to as the ’College’), was started in the premises of the Nalbari Basic Training Centr e in the year 1979 by some philanthropic persons of the locality and the petitio ner was appointed as a Lecturer in Assamese therein on 13.08.1979. The College received the concurrence and affiliation of the Government of Assam and the Gauh ati University and was eventually brought under the deficit system of grants-in- aid w.e.f 01.04.1992. The appointments of the incumbents holding the post of Le cturers in the College fulfilling the then UGC norms were provisionally approved by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam by his letter dated 24.02.1993. T he table annexed to the letter reflected the names and particulars of the said l ecturers. The post against the department of Assamese was shown to be vacant wi th the remark that the existing incumbent was not qualified. This was purported ly on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the then prevailing UGC nor ms. Eventually, the service of the petitioner was regularized provisionally w.e.f. 0 1.10.1993 at a fixed pay of Rs. 2,200/- per month subject to the stipulation tha t he would be entitled to the incremental benefit in the UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/- to 4,000/-, only after obtaining M.Phil/Ph.D degree within a period of 8 years, failing which his services would be discontinued. This was communicated by the letter dated 07.02.1994 of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam. T he petitioner has averred that the State Government having accepted the revised UGC norms of the 55% in M.A/M.SC/M.Com degree with Honours of First Degree level w.e.f 15.12.1988/30.12.1988, he was entitled to have his service regularized as he was possessed of the prerevised UGC norms of 52.5% at the aforementioned aca demic levels, without imposing on him the conditions, as enumerated in the commu nication dated 07.02.1994. In this regard, he has referred to the letter dated 11.02.1992 of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam addressed to the Commiss ioner, Education Department, Government of Assam, citing the instances of 16 lec turers, who were similarly situated with a request to regularize their services under the deficit system of grants-in-aid as special cases sanctioning to them t he revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200/- to 4000/-. The letter also contains a reference of other teachers of different deficit colleges with the same qualifi cations, whose appointment had been approved prior to 15.12.1998 and had been al lowed the benefit of revised UGC scale of pay. According to the petitioner, act ing on this letter dated 11.02.1992, the concerned lecturers were granted the be nefit of revised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-, from the date on and from which their Colleges were brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. Th e petitioner has also produced other official communications to demonstrate that teachers similarly placed like him had been extended the said benefit. 05. The petitioner in the above premise, approached this Court with C.R. No. 3671/1006, against the order dated 07.02.1994 amongst others, for annul ment thereof and for direction to provide him with the UGC scale of pay w.e.f 01 .04.1992. The challenge having been declined, he preferred an appeal being W.A No. 457/1999, which was disposed of on 22.07.2002, directing the State responden ts to examine his claim at par with similarly situated lecturers. The petitione rs, submitted representations, thereafter and also initiated a contempt proceedi ng being Contempt Petition (C) No. 402/2003. During the pendency of the same, b y the official communication dated 14.07.2003 of the Secretary, Government of As sam, Education (Higher) Department, the Government’s decision to approve his ser vices in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- w.e.f from 15.07.2003 was conveyed. The contempt petition in the above circumstances was closed leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue his claim, if reliefs in terms of the decisi on, in the appeal were not accorded to him. The impugned order dated 09.02.2004 followed rejecting his claim for UGC scale of pay w.e.f 01.04.1992, the date of taking over of the petitioner’s College under the deficit system of grants-in-a id. The averments in the writ petition have remained unrefuted in absence of any cou nter by the State respondents. 06. However, as is available from the decision rendered in the afore mentioned appeal, the stand of the State respondents, in substance appear to be that the Government of Assam, on 15.12.1988 had accepted the modified revised UG C norms of 55% in Master Degree with good academic record and extended the benef it of revised UGC pay scales w.e.f from 01.01.1986. As at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not satisfy the revised UGC norms, his services were p rovisionally approved subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 07 .02.1994. The State respondents have contended that the cases of 16 lecturers r eferred to the in the letter dated 11.02.1992 were not at par with that of the p etitioner as the Colleges to which they belong, were brought under the deficit s ystem of grants-in-aid, immediately after the acceptance of UGC revised pay scal es and norms and as they possessed the prerevised norms next before 15.12.1988. As the petitioner’s College had been brought under the deficit system of grants -in-aid much thereafter, he was not entitled to claim the identical benefit. 07. The petitioner in the earlier writ proceeding, in his affidavit- in-reply, inter alia, asserted that the services of one Smti. Pranati Talukdar, whose case had been forwarded along with him and others vide communication dated 16.02.1993, were approved in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-, w.e.f. 01.04.1992 without insisting on the compliance of the two conditions referred to in the le tter dated 07.02.1994 by which his services had been provisionally approved at a fixed pay of Rs. 2200/-. In the aforementioned writ appeal, the petitioner als o averred that the services of lecturers similarly situated like him having prer evised norms of 52.5% as well as those possessing State relaxed prerevised UGC n orms of 47.5% in PG in language subject and 50% at that level in other subjects had been regularized. 08. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that having regard to the backdrop of f acts, the impugned order dated 07.03.2004 being not in compliance of the decisio n of this Court rendered in the aforementioned writ appeal, is liable to be adju dged null and void. As persons similarly situated like the petitioners had been granted the benefit of the UGC scale of pay with effect from the date(s) on and from which their Colleges had been brought under the deficit system of grants-i n-aid, the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is, on the face of the r ecord, arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Senior counsel, has argued tha t the impugned order notwithstanding, till date, no interference in any manner h as been effected with the service conditions of the other lecturers equally plac ed like the petitioner and that they are enjoying the benefit of UGC scale of pa y, as sanctioned to them. Mr. Choudhury, has contended that having regard to th e stand taken by the respondents, the impugned order is only a ploy to unfairly deny the petitioner his due entitlements in law. 09. The learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, in reply, ha s pleaded that as admittedly, on the date of which the petitioner’s College had been brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, he was deficient vis-a-v is the prevalent UGC norms, he can by no means claim the benefit of UGC scale of pay with effect from that date. As the State respondents are contemplating to review the cases of the lecturers similarly wanting in the UGC norms, but favour ed with its (UGC) scale of pay on and from the date(s) of taking over of that Co llege under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, the allegation of discriminatio n is wholly misplaced. 10. The rival contentions have received the due consideration of thi s Court. Incidentally, the grievances raised on behalf of the petitioner in the aforementioned appeal, including grant of UGC scale of pay w.e.f 01.04.1992, th e date with effect from which his College had been taken under the deficit syste m of grants-in-aid, had been rejected by Division Bench of this Court, the State respondents were directed to reexamine his avowal that the services of one Smti . Pranati Talukdar and others, whose names had been forwarded along with him by the communication dated 16.02.1993 of the Director of Public Instruction (Higher Education) Assam, had been granted the revised scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/-, per month without insisting on the covenants as mentioned in the letter dated 0 7.02.1994, provisionally approving his services at a fixed pay of Rs. 2000/-. The official exchanges referred to hereinabove, are not in dispute. By the comm unication dated 14.07.2003 the petitioner’s services have been approved in the r evised UGC scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13500/- per month w.e.f 15.07.2003. The pet itioner’s contention that the State respondents have similarly approved the serv ices of other lecturers in deficit Colleges possessed of the pre-revised UGC nor ms of 52.5%, as well as State relaxed norms of 47.5%/50%, was also taken note of . The fact that the petitioner before 15.12.1988, the date on and from which th e State Government had accepted the revised UGC norms and pay scales, had to his credit the prerevised UGC norms of 52.5% in PG is not in doubt. The direction issued in the writ appeal for a fresh consideration of his case, was passed in t he conspectus of the attendant facts responding to his grievance of discriminati on. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner’s representation for recon sideration of his case has been rejected principally on the ground that a review of the cases of the similarly situated lecturers is being contemplated as the b enefits accorded to them had been in violation of the relevant norms. The tone and tenor of the impugned order, however, demonstrate that the same is not in co mpliance of the direction of this Court as no fresh decision on the petitioner’s claim on merit, has been taken as directed. It is submitted at the Bar that though represented in the impugned order, no act ion has yet been taken against the other lecturers, claimed to be equally placed like the petitioner. His contention that the respondents have taken a step mot herly attitude towards him cannot, thus, be brushed aside. It was expected of t he departmental authorities to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim in term s of the directions issued by this Court in W.A No. 457/1999. The impugned orde r does not disclose any endeavour in that regard. In that view of the matter, t he same has to be interfered with. It is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Higher Education) Governmen t of Assam, to cause necessary steps to be taken for a fresh consideration of th e petitioner’s claim in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the afor ementioned appeal. Needless to say, if the authority concerned feels it necessa ry, it would notify the petitioner and afford him a reasonable opportunity of he aring in the matter. As the issue is lingering for along, the exercise, as orde red by this Court, should be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if on a scrutiny, as ordered, the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits as w ould be determined, the same would be extended to him at the earliest. The peti tions stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.