High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit appeals dismissed; the impugned judgment i...
Director, National Institute of Technology Calicut & Ors. v. Dr. Muraleedharan C. & Ors.
Case / Petition Number:WA Nos. 1399/2019; 1405/2019; 1413/2019; 1438/2019; 1480/2019; 1531/2019
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.M. Shaffique
- V.G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2020-05-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ appeals dismissed; impugned judgment upholding the Single Judge’s relief is sustained; natural justice considerations and parity remedies as implemented remain in force; no costs awarded.
- Final Disposition
- Writ appeals dismissed; the impugned judgment is upheld; the relief to petitioners on pay anomaly remains in effect; no order as to costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- The Director, National Institute of Technology Calicut
- The Board of Governors represented by its Chairperson, National Institute of Technology Calicut
- The Chairperson, Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology Calicut
Respondents
- Dr. Muraleedharan C., Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Calicut
- Dr. Joseph M.A., Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Calicut
- Council of National Institute of Technology represented by its Chairman, MHRD
- Union of India represented by the Secretary, MHRD, Department of Secondary and Higher Education
- Dr. M. Narayanan, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Calicut
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Shyam Padman
- • C.M. Andrews
- • P.T. Mohankumvar
- • Boby M. Sekhar
- • Kum. Laya Mary Joseph
Counsels for Respondents
- • Vishnu S
- • C.G. Preetha
- • Jaishankar V. Nair
- • S.V. Vishnu
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch judgment from the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) deals with pay anomaly reliefs given to faculty of National Institute of Technology Calicut who acquired Ph.Ds and the subsequent steps to revert those benefits. The Pay Anomaly Committee had recommended three advance increments for those who earned a Ph.D after 01.01.2006, and earlier Ph.D. holders were stepped up to parity. In October 2013, the Board of Governors accepted the recommendation. In 2017, the Board decided to step down the pay of those who had benefited from the anomaly remedy, prompting several writ petitions. The petitioners argued that parity once conferred cannot be undone, and that the disparity between pre- and post-01.01.2006 Ph.D. holders was resolved by the anomaly orders; they relied on the principle that a senior must not be paid less than a junior, and on authorities like Swaminathan (1997) and Gurucharan Singh Grewal (2009). The respondents contended that parity cannot be claimed where incremental benefits were granted, and that government rules and FR 22(I)(a)(1) govern such fixation, not parity. The Court held that FR22(I)(a)(1) concerns pay fixation on promotion, not parity, and Swaminathan has no direct application here. It found Gurucharan Grewal relevant to support parity in appropriate circumstances and rejected the challenge to the impugned judgment, dismissing the writ appeals. The impugned order granting parity/remedies stands upheld, with no costs order."
Provisions of Law Cited
National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007First Statute for the National Institutes of Technology (Statute 24(iii))Fundamental Rule 22(I)(a)(1)Fundamental Rule 22OM No.4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4-11-1993CPC references: 5th CPC, 6th CPCPay Anomaly Committee recommendations (October 2013)Decision No. 23 under Fundamental Rule 22
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Senior shall not be paid lesser salary than his junior (settled principle)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that parity achieved under the anomaly remedy cannot be undone; senior faculty cannot be penalized for disparities created by post-01.01.2006 increments; reliance was placed on Union of India v. R. Swaminathan (1997) 7 SCC 690 and Gurucharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board (2009) (3) SCC 94 to support parity and rectification of anomalies; natural justice required restoration of parity as per the initial anomaly-order benefits.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that pay parity cannot be created through retrospective increments and that the 6th CPC framework and subsequent policies permitted stepping down pay to rectify anomalies; reliance was placed on FR 22, OM clarifications, and policy guidelines. They argued Swaminathan was inapplicable since FR 22(I)(a)(1) relates to promotions, not parity, and that the anomaly rectification had been correctly implemented by the Board.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India and another v. R. Swaminathan | (1997) 7 SCC 690 | Distinguished | Court found Swaminathan inapplicable to the present case since FR22(I)(a)(1) concerns promotion fixation, not pay parity remedy. |
| Gurucharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors | (2009) 3 SCC 94 | Positive | Court relied on Grewal to support the principle that parity should be corrected where seniors are paid less when juniors benefit from higher increments, aligning with the anomaly remedy. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Director, National Institute of Technology Calicut & Ors. v. Dr. Muraleedharan C. & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942 WA.No.1399 OF 2019**
**JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33827/2017(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
|**1**|**THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY**|
|---|---|
||**CALICUT**|
||**NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.**|
|**2**|**THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL**|
||**INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS**|
||**P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.**|
|**3**|**THE CHAIRPERSON**|
||**BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF**|
||**TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT -**|
||**673 601.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.SHYAM PADMAN**|
||**SRI.C.M.ANDREWS**|
||**SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR**|
||**SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR**|
||**KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**|
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 DR.MURALEEDHARAN.C AGED 3 YEARS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601. 2 DR. JOSEPH. M. A.**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
2
**PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.**
- **3 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.**
- **4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI - 110 001.**
- **5 DR. M. D. NARAYANAN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT - 673 601.**
**R1-2, R5 BY ADV. VISHNU S(B/O) R3-4 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1405/2019, WA.1413/2019, WA.1438/2019, WA.1480/2019, WA.1531/2019, THE COURT ON 19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942**
## **WA.No.1405 OF 2019**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16901/2018(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
**1 THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P. O., CALICUT - 673 601 2 THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P. O., CALICUT - 673 601 3 THE CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P. O., CALICUT - 673 601**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
4
- **1 DR.A.K.KASTHURBA PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P. O., CALICUT - 673 601**
- **2 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001**
- **3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI - 110 001**
**R1 BY ADV. VISHNU S(B/O) R2-3 BY ADV. M.C.MONI,CGC(BY ORDER)**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1399/2019, WA.1413/2019, WA.1438/2019, WA.1480/2019, WA.1531/2019, THE COURT ON 19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
5
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942**
**WA.No.1413 OF 2019**
**JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34043/2017(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
|**1**|**THE DIRECTOR,**|
|---|---|
||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT**|
||**CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-673 601.**|
|**2**|**THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL**|
||**INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS**|
||**P.O., CALICUT-673 601.**|
|**3**|**THE CHAIRPERSON**|
||**BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF**|
||**TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-**|
||**673 601.**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SHYAM PADMAN**|
||**SRI.C.M.ANDREWS**|
||**SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR**|
||**SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR**|
||**KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**|
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 DR. V.MADHUSUDHANAN PILLAI**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
6
**ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT-673 601.**
- **2 DR.GHULAM JILANI PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-673 601.**
- **3 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI-110 001.**
- **4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI-110001.**
- **5 DR. A. SHAIJA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-673 601. (DELETED).**
**R1-2, R5 BY ADV. SRI. S.VISHNU (B/O) R3-4 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1399/2019, WA.1405/2019, WA.1438/2019, WA.1480/2019, WA.1531/2019, THE COURT ON 19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
7
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942**
**WA.No.1438 OF 2019**
**JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34174/2017(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
|**1**|**THE DIRECTOR**|
|---|---|
||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT**|
||**CAMPUS P.O.,**|
||**CALICUT 673 601.**|
|**2**|**THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON NATIONAL**|
||**INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O.**|
||**CALICUT 673 601**|
|**3**|**THE CHAIRPERSON,**|
||**BOARD OF GOVERNORS,**|
||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT**|
||**CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**SRI.SHYAM PADMAN**|
||**SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR**|
||**SRI.C.M.ANDREWS**|
||**SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR**|
||**KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**|
**RESPONDENT/S:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
8
## **1 VARAPRASAD GARAPATI ASSISTANT PROFESSOR**
- **DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY L CALIUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT. 673 601**
- **2 JAYADEEP.U.B, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **3 GEORGE.K. VARGHESE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **4 HANAS.T. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,**
**SCHOOL OF NANO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **5 DR. SUDHEER.A.P. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **6 HARIKRISHNA.M., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **7 SAJITH.A.S., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
9
- **8 SHIJO THOMAS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF NANO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT NIT CAMPUS P.O. CALICUT 673 601**
- **9 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.**
- **10 UNION OF INDIA**
**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI 110 001**
**R1 BY ADV. S.VISHNU FOR R R2-7 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU**
**R8 BY ADV. SRI. S VISHNU FOR R-1 TO R-8B/O R9 BY ADV. CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL FOR R-9(B/O) R10 BY ADV. CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL FOR R-10(B/O)**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1399/2019, WA.1405/2019, WA.1413/2019, WA.1480/2019, WA.1531/2019, THE COURT ON 19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
10
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942**
**WA.No.1480 OF 2019**
**JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 322/2018(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
**1 THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT- 673601. 2 THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, CALICUT673601. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT673601.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 DR.P.K.RAJENDRA KUMAR,**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
11
**PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT- 673601.**
- **2 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.**
- **3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI- 110001.**
- **4 DR.GHULAM JILANI, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT- 673601.**
**R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU(BY ORDER) R2-3 BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1399/2019, WA.1405/2019, WA.1413/2019, WA.1438/2019, WA.1531/2019, THE COURT ON 19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
12
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1942**
**WA.No.1531 OF 2019**
**JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38412/2017(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **APPELLANT/S:**
|**1**|**THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY**|
|---|---|
||**NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT**|
||**CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-673 601**|
|**2**|**THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL**|
||**INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS**|
||**P.O., CALICUT-673 601**|
|**3**|**THE CHAIRPERSON,**|
||**BOARD OF GOVERNORS,NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF**|
||**TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-**|
||**673 601**|
**BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.C.M.ANDREWS SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**1 SUNIL.M.S ASSOCIATED PROFESSOR, PHYSICAL EDUCATION,**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
13
**DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, NATIONAL INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS P.O., CALICUT-673 601**
- **2 COUNCIL OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001**
- **3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI-110 001**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI VISHNU .S.(B/O) R2-3 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON**
- **05.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1399/2019, WA.1405/2019, WA.1413/2019, WA.1438/2019, WA.1480/2019, THE COURT ON**
**19.05.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
14
## **JUDGMENT**
Dated this the 19[th] day of May, 2020
## **V.G.ARUN, J.**
The National Institute of Technology, Calicut, on behalf of which the appeals are filed, is one among the Regional Engineering Colleges that had acquired the status of National Institute of Technology on introduction of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 ( “the NIT Act” for short). Thereafter, in exercise of the power conferred under the NIT Act, the Central Government framed the First Statute for the National Institutes of Technology. As per Statute 24(iii) therein, employees of the NIT are entitled for allowances, in addition to pay, as admissible to the Central Government employees. Hence, the periodic revision of pay of the Central Government employees, based on the Central Pay Commission
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
15
recommendations, are applicable to the employees of the NIT. 2. The issue which resulted in the filing of the writ petitions arose consequent to the recommendation of the 6[th] CPC to grant three additional incentive increments to those faculty members of higher educational institutions who had acquired Ph.D qualification after 01.01. 2006. Implementation of this recommendation resulted in disparity in pay among the faculty members of the NIT inasmuch as, those faculty members who had acquired Ph.D degree prior to 01.01.2006 got lesser salary than those who had acquired Ph.D degree after 01.01.2006, in spite of both sets of faculty members having been in the same pay scale prior to 01.01.2006. This anomaly in pay scale led to numerous complaints being filed before the Board of Governors, compelling the Board to appoint a Faculty Grievance Redressal Committee and Pay
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
16
Anomaly Committee. The Pay Anomaly Committee found substance in the grievances. The Committee noticed that the faculty members, who were benefited by the 6[th] CPC recommendation, did not possess any extra qualification for making them eligible for additional pay than their batch mates. The Committee observed that acquiring Ph.D qualification earlier should not result in penalising the faculty members of the same batch and recommended that the pay of faculty members who had acquired Ph.D prior to 01.01.2006 ought to be stepped up to be at par with those who are benefited by the 6[th] CPC recommendation. The recommendations were accepted by the Board of Governors and consequent orders passed in October, 2013. Much later, the Board of Governors in its 37[th] meeting held on 31.07.2017, decided to step down the pay of those members
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
17
of the faculty, who had benefited by stepping up their pay based on the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee. Consequential orders were passed in the case of individual faculty members, stepping down their pay to the earlier scale. Aggrieved by the stepping down of their pay the affected faculty members filed writ petitions. The learned Single Judge heard the writ petitions jointly and by the common impugned judgement allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the orders by which the pay of the petitioner's was stepped down and directed to grant the petitioners all the benefits to which they became entitled based on the initial order by which the anomaly was rectified. Aggrieved, the NIT has preferred these writ appeals through its Director and Board of Governors.
3. Heard Sri.Shyam Padman, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Vishnu Chempzhanthiyil, learned Counsel for
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
18
the respondents/writ petitioners and Smt. C.G. Preetha the learned CGC.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that though it is settled law that a senior shall not draw lesser pay than his junior, all such instances need not be termed as an anomaly, giving rise to a claim for parity. The decision in
_**Union of India and another v. R.Swaminathan [(1997) 7 SCC 690]**_ is cited in support of this proposition. Reliance is placed on O.M.No.4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4-11-1993 of the Government of India, by which, it was clarified that, instances of a junior getting more pay due to additional increments earned on higher qualification do not give rise to a claim for stepping up of pay by the senior, for equating his salary with that of the junior. The learned Counsel points out that the successive Central Pay Commission's had recommended for
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
19
grant of incentive increment in different modes. The 5[th] CPC recommended two advance increments for Lecturers as and when they acquire Ph.D degree in their service career. The 6[th] CPC recommended three advance increments to those the faculty members who had acquired Ph.D after 01.01.2006. It is contended that the writ petitioners had already received the advance increments based on the 5[th] CPC recommendation and therefore cannot complain about the grant of three advance increments to the faculty members who had acquired Ph.D after 01.01.2006, nor seek pay parity. It is contended that after issuance of the anomaly rectification orders, the Principal Director General of Audit, Chennai had objected to the grant of pay parity, on the premise that the action was contrary to the guidelines stipulated by the Government, vide decision No. 23 under Fundamental Rule 22 and had directed
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
20
to review and rectify all decisions granting pay parity. Thereupon, the issue was considered by the Board of Governors and decision taken to step down the pay. It is contended and that in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the decision of the Board of Directors.
5. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the issue is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in W.A.No.488 of 2017, though not with respect to the faculty members of NIT. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10283 of 2012, which was rendered under
similar circumstance, relying on the decision of Apex Court in
_**Gurucharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors [2009 (3) SCC 94]**_ . It is contended that the individual
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
21
grievances of the writ petitioners having been considered by the Pay Anomaly Committee and recommendation made for rectifying the anomalies, which was accepted and implemented by the Board of Governors, the stepping down of their pay without notice militates against the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair play.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel at length, we are of the considered view that the findings in the impugned judgement warrant no interference. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, FR22(I)(a)(1) deals with fixation of pay on promotion to a higher post and has nothing to do with grant of pay parity to a senior drawing lesser salary than a junior on the junior being granted advance increments. Therefore the decision in _**R.Swaminathan**_ (supra), which was rendered with reference to FR22(I)(a)(1) have no application
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
22
as far as the case at hand is concerned. For the same reason, the contention based on O.M.No.4/7/92-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 4- 11-1993 of the Government of India also do not merit consideration. Even otherwise the clarification in the OM is only to the effect that claim for pay parity by a senior will not be entertained when the junior gets more pay due to additional increments earned on higher qualification. Here the junior had acquired only a qualification which the senior had acquired much earlier and therefore under no circumstance can it be treated as acquisition of a qualification higher than that of the senior. In this context the following paragraphs of the Apex Court judgment in _**Gurucharan Singh Grewal (supra)**_ assumes relevance:-
_“11. Mr. Chhabra also attempted to justify the disparity in the pay of Shri. Shori and the appellant No. 1 by urging that the appellant No. 1 had been granted the promotional scale with effect from 1[st] January, 1996, where the benefits of increment in the scale were lower. On the other hand,_
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
23
_Shri. Shori who joined the services of the Board in 1974, was granted the promotional scale on 17[th] May, 2006, with effect from 1[st] September, 2001, when the increments and the payscales were higher. Mr. Chhabra submitted that it is the disparity in the incremental benefits that led to the anomaly of the appellant No. 1 getting a lower salary in the promotional scale._
_12. xxx_
_13. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales which the appellant No. 1 and Shri. Shori are placed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if, there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to the appellant No. 1 and the scale given to Shri. Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of the appellant No.1 was also stepped up to that of Shri. Shori, as appears to have been done in the case of the appellant No. 2.”_
In such circumstances, the contention that the disparity in incremental benefits being the reason for disparity, the claim for parity cannot be entertained, is only to be discarded.
7. We may also refer to the following finding of a coequal Bench of this court in its judgment in W.A.No.488 of 2017, rendered after considering the same issue;
_“7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader_
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438, 1480 & 1531/2019
24
_before us. Though it is true that respondents 1 to 5 are persons who have already been granted the benefits of career advancement for having acquired their Ph.D degrees, as per the earlier UGC Scheme, the implementation of the subsequent Scheme cannot justify a situation where their juniors draw higher salary than them. Though we wanted the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent to enlighten us on the rationale that forms the basis of the decision to grant three additional increments to persons who have acquired their Ph.Ds after 01.09.2008, we could not get an answer. Admittedly, all the persons are Ph.D holders. The incentives are meant to be granted to persons who have acquired Ph.D Degrees. It is not in dispute that, there is no difference in the qualifications of respondents 1 to 5 and their seniors. Nature of the work discharged by each one of them is also similar. Therefore, there is no justification for classifying them into persons who have acquired Ph.D before 01.09.2008 and subsequent to the said date, for the purpose of conferring a career advancement increment. It may be true that, respondents 1 to 5 are persons who are not entitled to claim the benefit of the 6 th UGC Scheme, they being persons who have already obtained the benefits of career advancement under the earlier Scheme. However, implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where their juniors are permitted to draw more salary than respondents 1 to 5. If such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of their juniors. The above position has been settled by the Apex Court in the decision on which reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the issue in proper perspective and that, there are no infirmities warranting an interference with the judgment in appeal.”_
## Suffice it to say that we are in respectful agreement with the
W.A.Nos.1399, 1405, 1413, 1438,
1480 & 1531/2019
25
above judgment.
For the reasons mentioned above, we reject the challenge against the impugned judgment and accordingly dismiss the writ appeals. No order as to costs.
**Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
**JUDGE**
Scl/19.05.2020