HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 237 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Rajesh Kumar Ubhan & another …..Petitioners Versus S tate of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents Mr.K. N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Dated: January 5, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) The Government has propounded a Policy contained in the Government Order No. 390/70-2-99- 16(45)98 dated 16th February, 1999. The said Policy has been clarified by a clarification order dated 1st December, 1999. In terms thereof, a College Teacher is entitled to two increments, once in his career, when he obtains Ph.D. Degree, provided, however, the Ph.D. Degree is not an essential qualification for his appointment. Petitioner no.1 was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) in the year 1984, in the Government Post Graduate College, Rishikesh and the petitioner no.2 was appointed as Lecturer (Economics) also in the year 1984, in the Government Post Graduate College, Karnprayag. Even today, the petitioners are such Lecturers. That state of affair clearly demonstrates that for appointment as such Lecturers, it was not a requirement for either of the petitioners to have Ph.D. Degree. On 26th May, 2000, petitioner no.1 obtained Ph.D. Degree and on 29th November, 1999, petitioner no.2 obtained Ph.D. Degree. Accordingly, in terms of the said Policy, petitioner no.1 was granted two advance increments from 26th May, 2002, and petitioner no.2 was also granted two advance increments from 29th November, 1999. By the orders impugned dated 1st July, 2 2010, it was held out that the grant of the said two increments to the petitioners, for they obtained Ph.D., was unjust and contrary to the Policy of the Government and that the money drawn by the petitioners, on the basis of such grant, shall be recovered from the petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. This Court, being satisfied, granted an interim stay, restraining the Government from making any recovery. 2. Dr. M.C. Trivedi, the Director, Higher Education, Uttarakhand has filed a counter affidavit and thereby has suggested that the petitioners were not entitled to the increments in question. In the said counter affidavit, it has been unjustly and inappropriately projected, that the petitioners were not qualified to be appointed in 1984 in the posts of Lecturer, since the petitioners did not possess, at that time, NET qualification. Surprisingly, while doing so, the affidavit took notice of the U.G.C. guidelines, issued in 2002, and did not take notice of the guidelines of U.G.C., under which the petitioners could be appointed. However, by referring to the guidelines of U.G.C. of 2002, the counter affidavit has made it clear that deponent thereof was aware that Ph.D. is not a requirement for being appointed as Lecturer. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that Government Order dated 16th February, 1999, provided for career progression of Teachers. It has been stated that once a person has obtained benefit of the career progression under the said Government Order, he is not entitled to the benefit of two increments, as mentioned in the Government Order dated 1st December, 1999, referred to above. The stand, thus taken, is contrary to what has been provided in the 3 Government Orders dated 16th February, 1999 and 1st December, 1999. 3. A further counter affidavit has been filed by one Nitesh Kumar Jha, Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department. In that affidavit too, a similar stand has been taken. 4. The fact remains that while Government Order dated 16th February, 1999 was made, Teachers of Colleges and Universities got the benefit of revised pay scale. In addition to that they also obtained a scheme for career progression. In terms thereof, they became entitled to senior scale and thereupon, Selection Grade on personal promotion to the post of Reader. In order to obtain the senior scale, an existing Teacher with Ph.D. Degree, is to wait for four years whereas, a Teacher without a Ph.D., is to wait for six years. Similar difference of wait period is there, in order to obtain Selection Grade/Reader. A Teacher, without Ph.D., can only be given the Selection Grade, but in order to obtain personal promotion to the post of Reader one is required to be a Ph.D. That scheme had and has no connection with the scheme propounded by the Government on 1st December, 1999. In terms of the decision of the Govt. dated 1st December, 1999, a Teacher, on obtaining Ph.D., will get two increments in the scale in which he was then. That will not immediately inure to a promotion in the senior scale or in the Selection Grade or a personal promotion to the post of Reader. In order to obtain senior scale or Selection Grade or a personal promotion to the post of Reader, such a Ph.D. holder would be required to wait for the period mentioned in the Govt. Order dated 16th February, 1999. The Government 4 Order dated 1st December, 1999, was, thus, only to encourage existing Teachers to be more qualified and to obtain Ph.D. This Policy Decision of the Government was taken in the backdrop of the fact that in order to be appointed as a Teacher, Ph.D. is not a necessity, at all. A Post Graduate, with NET or SET qualification, can be appointed as a University Teacher. In order to improve knowledge of the Teachers in Universities and Colleges, the Government came up with the Policy dated 1st December, 1999. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons as above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders by which it has been held out that the petitioners were not entitled to the said increments and that the money as received on that account is recoverable. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 05.01.2011 NCM: