HI©HCOURT OF JU&ICATURE. CHHATHS^ARH AT 8ILASPUR PETETIONERS: Writ Petition No.293 of 1999 1. Dr. R.A. Sharma, S/o Late Shri 6.N. Sharma Aged about 48 yecrs, R/o 365, Samta Colony/ Raipur (M.P.) (now €.6.) 2. Dr. Jowahar Lal Tiwciri S/o Late Shri Jhumuk Lal Tiwari, Aqed about 45 years/ R/o N-8, Daulot Estate, Behind Ayurvedic College, Post Office^ Sunder Nagar, Danganiya, Rdpur (AA.P.) (now C.&.) 3. Dr. R.K. Pradhan S/o Shri Jd Pradhan, Aqed about 41 years, R/o Suite No.16, Teachers Hostel, Ravi Shanker* University Campus, Raipur (M.P.) (now C.©.) Versus RESPON&ENTS : 1. The Chancellor of UniversJty, AAadhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 2. Riayishcinkerl University/Raipur, Throu9h its|Re9istrar at Post bistt. Ralpur. 3. The Principal Secretory, Higher Education, Vallabh Bhawan/ Bhopal. POST FOR ORDER ON 18t11 June, 2003_ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge TZ^TfflTe,-20U3- ^ HI©HCOURT OF JUDIC^TURE. CHMATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR PETITEONERS: V. Writ Petition No.293 of 1999 1. &r. R.A. Sharma, S/o Late Shri ©.N.Sharma Agcd obout 48 years, R/o 365, Samta Colony, Raipur (AA.P.) (now C.6.) 2. Dr. jQwahar Lal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Jhumuk Lal Tiwari, Aged about 45 years, R/o N-8, baulat Estate. Behind Ayurvedic Colle9e/ Post Office: Sunder NagQr, Dan9oniya/ Raipur (AA.P.) (now C.6.) 3. Dr. R.K. Pradhan S/o Shri Jai Pr'adhan, Aged about 41 years, R/o Suite No.16, Teachers Hostel, Ravi Shanker University Campus, Raipur (M.P.) (now C.Q.) Versus RESPONDENTS : ^ 1. Tlie ChQncellor of University, AAadhyQPradesh, Bhopal. 2. RwishanMr University, Raipur, Throu9h its Registrar ot Post Distt. Raipur. 3. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Vallabh Bhcwan, Bhopal. Present:- Shri Proshont AAi^hra, Advoccste Shri Ayaz Noved, ©ovt.Advocate For the petitioners For the i State of Chhattisgorh / respondent No.3 Before: Hon1>!e Shri L.C. Bhddoo. J. \- OR&ER 03assed on {Slnjune. 2003) 1) The petitioners working as Senior Technical AssistQnts have preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by non-grant of regular scale of pay Rs.2200-4000/- and consequentia! re-designation of their posts QS Technical Officers with effect from 25th Juty, 1997. 2) This petition was filed in the yeor 1999 when the Stote of AAadhya Pradesh WQS in existence and now on 1 November, 2000, the present State of ChhQttisgarh has been carved out of the territory of the State of MadhyQ Pradesh and the Stote of Chhattisgarh has stepped in the shoes of State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Chhattisgarh has been represented by Mr. Ayoz Nwed, ©ovt.Advocate. 3) In Pora 5.2 of the petition, the petitioners hwe mentioned that the petitioners possess the required qualifications for the post of Senior Technico! Assistont and they are eligible and qualified fpr the sdd post. It has been further mentioned thot ail the Universities in the Stote of AAadhya Pradesh are established cind enacted under the Modhya Pradesh VishwcividyalayQ Adhiniyam, 1973 with identica! staffing pattern and SQlory. The service conditions etc. are also identical ond the funding of the Sdlary etc. is being done by the Stdte ©overnmentunder recommendations of the University ^rQnts Commission in the case of teachers. The po^t of Senior Technical Assistant has been gronted benefit of pay scale of R5.2200- 1 ' ! • 1 • 4000A by the University &rkants Commissions in varioys Universities right 1 ' ; ' T from 1980. Devi Ahilya University, Indore has grante<j the poy scale vide order dated 5th Augu^t, 1997; Rani burgawQti University, Jabalpur has v,_ granted the pay ^cale vide order dated 28th May, 1994 and &r. Hari singh fiour University, Sagar has granted the poy scQle vide order dated 17th May, 1995. Rani Dur^awati University, JabQlpur has also issued individual orders in favour of br. fi.C. Budholiya and &r. Rameshwar ftQwat on 6th September, 1985 and in relotion to Dr. P.K. Dubey and &.K. Chhatterjee their pay scale was fixed as Rs.2200-4000/- which WQS Qpproved by Loca! Fund and Audit Accounts. 4) The Senior TechnicQt Assistants working in Ravishanker Uniyersity, Rdpur were denied regular scale of pay Rs.2200BB4000/-B Qnd the re-designotion for the post as TechnicQl Officers was also denied. The motter was agitated from time to time before the University aind ultimately the Admini^trative Committee of the University in its meeting heid on 4th January, 1993 resolved to confer the benefit of pay scQle of Rs.2200- 4000A to the post of Senior Technicol Assistant and a copy of the Minu+e^ of the AAeetin9 dated 4th January, 1993 is Qnnex^d os Annexure P- 7. Again a meeYmg wos convened on 18 AAa^/1993 and the earlier decision was reiterated which is Annexure P-8. In spite of the above decision, the Senior TechnicQt Assistants csre being denied the benefit of the poy scole and Ggain vide AAeeting of the Executing Councit dafed 25th July, 1997 a similar decision was again tdken as per Para 3(b) of the Agendo. Copy of the AAinutes dated 25 July, 1997 15 Annexure P-9. The regular pay scal& has been gronted to the Librory Assistant 6rade-I; Store Keeper and Technical Assistants in anticipation of the approvQl from the Co-ordination Committee, but in case of Senior TechnicctllAssistonts such method is not being followed and only meetings are held. Ih spite of that in almost all the Universities of the Stote of Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of Rs.2200- ^ ^-3- 1-, 4000A has been granted to the Senior Technical Assistctnts along with the change of nomenclature and up-gradation of the post QS Technicai Officers. It is learnt that the decision of the Executive Council of the University dated 25th July, 1997 has been sent to the Co-ordination Comrrsittee vide covering letter dated 1st August, 1997, a copy of which is filed as Annexure Pnll along with the extract of the recommendQtions of the Executive Council with a detaited narration of the injustice meted out to the petitionsrs. The inaction on the part of the authorities is highly illegal and is liabie to be interfered. In splte of decision taken by the Univ^rsity ^ince 4th January, 1993, th^ petitioners are bein9 denied ths pay scale without any lawful justification. The Co-ordination Committee is also behGving in the same monner and is deiaying the mQtter without any justification. The Universlty Authorities are also Gcting in arbitrary manner by conferring the benefit of higher pcy scole in the cases of Llbrary Assistant ©rade-I,Store Keeper ond Technical Assistonts without waiting for the approval of the Co-ordination Committee, but some method is not being adopted in respect of the petitioners. It Is therefore, requested that respondents may kindly be directed by writ of mandamus to forthwith decide the question of grant of benefit of the post of Technical Officers and the poy scale of Rs.2200-4000/- (U.e.C. Scaie) to the petitioners in terms of the decision of the University Executive Couneil dated 25th Juiy, 1997. 5) Return hc$s been fifed on behalf of respondent No.3 in which it is mentioned that the basic pcsy scale for the Senior Technical Assistant WQS Rs.1600- 2720/- and throi^h Annexure P-7 the pay scale of Rs.2CXX)-3500/- was given in antidpGtion of the approvQl by the Co-ordincition Committee. ^~^ Vikram University, Ujjain is also giving the pay scale of Rs.1600-2720/- to the post of Senior Technical Assistcint. It is further submitted that there are number of anomdies, therefore, the State &overnment has constituted a Committee of Vice Chancellor^ to go throi^h the post structures of different Universities ond to recommend the unified poy scales so that thte anorriQlies are removed. The Committee has completed its work and submitted the report to the State &overnment. This report of the Committee has been forworded to the Finance bepoirtment for its approval ond Finance Department hcis forwarded the same to the Co-ordination Committee for its opprovai. It is further submitted that vyhatever recomnnenaQtions will be made by the Committee the same will be accepted Qndimplemented. The petitioners have no case, therefore, the petition be dismissed. 6) Return has also been filed on behalf of resporidents 1 ond 2 stating therein that the petitioners sought for a relief of pcy scale of Rs.2200B4000A as the post of Senior Technical Assistant has been designoted as Technical Officers as a consequentiQl benefit on the bosis of the U.G.C. Scheme of the University Service Instrumentation Centre (USIC) formerly known as Central Work Shop. Th@ qualification, pay scales etc. for USIC has been prescribed by the U.0.C. and the selection of the posts are to be made through the process of selection etc. Thej pay scale and other service conditions applicable to the petitioners arei given in Statute No.31, the Senior Technical Assistant is equivalent to Survey Instructor, Cartographer Qnd Superintendent Junior onct there is clear position thdt the rate of poy scate cre applicQble as announced by jthe Madhya Prodesh ^overnment from time to time. The petitioners are cldming relief on the, ^ ^' basis of the decision of the Executive Council which does not create any; right in favour of the petitioners because it is beyond the scope of Executive Counci!. The Executive Council has no authority to create the post and grant th© pcy scale without prior approvol of the State @overnment. Moreover, the present pay scote of Rs2000-3500A hcis already been 9ranted to the petitioners retrospectively in cinticipotion of the approvol of the ©overnment. The answering respondents have already written a ietter to 1tie Additiona! Chief Secretar*y (Education), &overnment of ModhyQ Pradesh to ascertdn the factual position. The poy scale of Rs.2200-4000/- is of CJQSS-II post like Lecturer in the University Teaching Department. Jhe selection of Class-II post like Lecturers is to be done under the provisions of Section 49| of the Modhya Prodesh University Act, 1973. The granting of the pay scales of Rs.2200-4CKX)/- is beyond the jurisdsction of the University as ho$ been provided in appendix of Statute 31. The petition is being misconc:eived and deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard AAr. Prashant AAishra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ayoz Naved, ©ovt.Advocate for the State of Chhottisgcirh / respondent No.3 os none oppeors on beholf of rejspondents 1 <& 2. 8) Mr. Prashont Mishra argued that in spite of the decision of the Executive Council of the respondent University and some being forwarded to the Government on 1 Augu5t, 1997, the State 6overnment| i.e Co-ordinotion Committee is sitting over the decision without any justification and detaying the matter for indefinite period wherleas the other Universities viz., Devi AhilyQ University, Indore; RQni Dur^jowati University, Jabalt '^' \.\ y- II ond Dr. Hari Singh ^our University, Sagor, hQve granted the benefit to similarly situoted persons. 9) "TTie respondent Unsversity has time and €3gQin requested the Stote ©overnmentCo-ordination Committee to give its decision and lastly yide letter dated 01.08.97 a request was made to the Co-ordination Committee for giving its approval. The order dated 15th becember/1999 of the Higher Education Department of the AAadhya Prodesh 6overnment has been placed on the record by the respondent in which the Cabinet vide its dedsion dated 19th Augu^t/1999 ha^ taken a decision that granting the pcy ^cale of Rs2200-4000/n- and the re-designation of the Senior Technical Assistont to Sdentific Officer was left to th©University with the condition that State ©overnmentwill not be able to meet the expenses as per the revised poy scate^. As per the University ©rantsCommission report vorious Universitie^ of the State of Madhya Pradesh QS mentioned in PQFQ 5.4 of the petition have dready grantcd the poy scde and hwe re-designated the po^it of Senior Technical Assistant as Technical Officer and they hove 9ronted the pay scale of Rs.2200-4(XX}/-.j The Executive Council of respondent University has dso resolved the grant of poy scale, but the Co» ordination Committee h<ss not tGken any decision and the matter is pending since 1997. Jhe only objection taken by the respondent is that without the opprova! of the Co-ordination Committee the University is not entitled to grant the pay scale of Rs.2^0-4000/-1 and dlso re-designation of the name of post as Technical Officer. 10)Havin9 rcgord to the fccts and circumstQnces of the case, the fact that the other Universities have aIreQdy implemented the U.0.C. Scheme by which the various Universities as mentioned in Pcxra 5.4 of the petition have^ Somo "i-- alreQdy granted the pay scale of Rs.2200"a4000/n by re-designating the post of Senior Technicol Assistant as Technical Officer/the fact that the Executive Council of the re^pondent University has aiso taken the decision to grant the same scaie of poy and the same wos forwarded to Co- ordinatjon Committee of the State ©overnmentfor its approval as back as on 01.08.1997, since then the Committee has not taken any decision and the decision of th©Executive Council was sent on 01.08.1997 to the Co- ordination Committee of ©overnmentof Mcsdhya Pradesh and now the Rayjshanker University comes under the State of Chhattisgarh, I am of the opinlon that some direction should be given to the respondents. 11) In the result, it is ordered that respondent No.2 shdl agdn forward the decision doted 25.07.97 of its Executive Council to the Co-ordination Committee of Statc of Chhatti^garh ^ithin a period of one month and in turn the Co-ordination Committee of State of Chhattisgarh wil! take its appropriate decision within G period of three months from the date of receipt of the papers from University. 12) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 13)Parties Qre entitled for certified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge -A c^