http://www.aifucto.org/Allahabad%20High%20Court%20Judgement%20on%20payment%20of%20arreras.pdf
Judgement is as under:
Court No. -
9
Case :-
WRIT - A No. - 64068 of 2011
Petitioner
:- Dr. Hridaya Nath Tripathi
Respondent
:- The State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner
Counsel :- Durga Tiwari
Respondent
Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.D.Pandey
Hon'ble
Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon'ble
Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel as well as learned
counsel for the Union of India.
The petitioner, who is a
Coordinator of the Association, known
as U.P. University College
Professors Association and Ex-Reader in
Agriculture Engineering
Department at National
P.G. College,
Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur,
has filed the instant writ petition on
account of non-payment of
arrears of salary
to the members
of
Association w.e.f.
1.1.2006 to 30.11.2008
pursuant to the
recommendations 6
th
Pay Commission.
According to the petitioner, the
University Grants Commission
has been
established under the
provisions of University
Grants
Commission Act, 1956, which is a
Central Act. The recommendations
of the University Grants
Commission are binding on all the State
Universities. The
University Grants Commission
has made a
recommendation for
the pay scales
of Teachers throughout
the
Country which was accepted and
implemented by the Ministry of
Human Resource Department vide
Circular dated 31.12.2008. The
State Government,
vide order dated
28.2.2009, has also
accepted/adopted the pay scale of
Teachers as recommended by the
University Grants Commission and
implemented by the Ministry of
Human Resource Department with
certain conditions. A plain reading
of the Government Order dated
28.2.2009 makes it clear that the pay
scale of Teachers, Principals and
Librarians has been allowed under
the said Government Order in
terms of the recommendations of the
University Grants Commission and
the Central Government to the
Teachers, Principals
and Librarians of the State
Universities and
Colleges (Government as well as
aided non-Government).
According to the petitioner, the
Scheme of revision of pay-scale
and other service conditions of
teacher, which were made applicable
for the teachers of Central
Universities, was adopted by the State
Government. Thereafter,
the Director of
Higher Education, U.P.,
Allahabad issued a letter dated
25.11.2010 to all the Regional Higher
Education Officers
for submitting the
report with regard
to the2
payment of arrears of salary for
the period of 1.1.2006 to 30.3.2010.
On receipt
of the said
letter dated 25.11.2010,
the Principal of
National Post Graduate College,
Barhalganj, Gorakhpur has sent a
letter on
1.2.2011 to the
Regional Higher Education
Officer,
Gorakhpur, demanding the fund for
the payment of arrears from the
State Government
for the period
1.1.2006 to 3.10.2008
but no
decision in respect thereof was
made by the State Government and
as such, the petitioner preferred
representation, which too was not
decided. In these backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the
petitioner
approached this Court by filing a
writ petition No. 20375 of 2011. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
vide order dated 7.4.2011, disposed
of the writ petition with a
direction to the respondent No.1 to decide
the representation of the petitioner
with regard to the payment of
arrears of salary.
As the aforeasaid order dated
7.4.2011 passed by this Court
was not complied in its letter
and spirit and as such, the petitioner
preferred a contempt petition,
bearing No. 3226 of 2011, in which,
notice was issued.
According to
the petitioner, after
issuing notice by the
Contempt Court,
the respondent No.1
decided the petitioner's
representation in compliance of
the order dated 7.4.2011, whereby
the respondent No.1 rejected the
petitioner's representation.
Hence the instant writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that though
the State
Government had accepted the revision
of pay-scale in
pursuant to
the Scheme dated
31.12.2008 and also
issued a
Government Order dated 28.2.2009
to this effect but the respondent
No.1, without
considering the Government
Orders, rejected the
petitioner's representation in a
cursory manner.
Elaborating his submission,
learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Scheme of the
Central Government for the payment
of revision
of pay scale,
which was accepted
by the State
Government vide order dated
28.2.2009, is reimbursive in nature and
the purpose of reimbursement is
that the State Government will pay
first and thereafter the State
Government will get the money from
the Central Government. He submits that the sole ground for
nonpayment of the revision of pay-scale to the petitioner is that the
Central Government has not
provided 80% budget. He submits that3
while rejecting the petitioner's
representation, the respondent No.1
has not
stated a whisper
of word about
the reimbursement.
Furthermore, the State Government
has already obtained the budget
of Rs. 780.00 Crore for the
Financial Year 2011-2012 and 800 Crore in
the financial year 2010-2011 for
the payment of revision of pay-scale
to the teachers of the higher
education and the same was also
accepted by the respondent 1 in
the impugned order. Thus, the
impugned order is liable to be
rejected.
Supporting the
action of the
State Government, learned
Standing Counsel submits that for
payment of arrears from 1.1.2006
to 30.11.2008, the State
Government adopted the scheme of revised
pay-scale, inter alia, on the
assurance that 80% of the expenses to be
incurred in the implementation of
the scheme would be borne by the
Central Government.
Accordingly, the State
Government has
demanded 80% of the money under
the Scheme from the Central
Government vide letters dated
16.6.2010 and 1.8.2011 but not a
single penny has been sent by the
Central Government. Therefore,
the revised pay-scale to the
teachers of the Universities could not be
paid. Furthermore, vide impugned order dated
21.8.2011, it has
been explained
that after receipt
of assistance from
the Central
Government, arrears will be paid.
Thus, the respondent No.1, after
considering the entire aspect of
the matter, has rightly rejected the
petitioner's representation.
Mr. Ajai Ballabh, learned counsel
for the Union of India states
that after
taking into consideration
the views expressed
by the
several State Education Ministers
during the Conference held in the
year 2010, the Central Government
decided to delink the condition of
enhancement of age of
superannuation from the payment of Central
share of 80% arrears to the
States. Accordingly, vide letter No. F-1-
7/2010-U,II dated
14.8.2012 issued to all the
State Education
Secretaries in charge of Higher
Education, the Ministry of Human
Resource Development
Department of Higher
Education informed
that the
issue of age
of retirement has
been left to the State
Government to
decide at their
level and the
condition of
enhancement of age of
superannuation to 65 years as mentioned in
the Ministry's letter dated
31.12.2008 may be treated as withdrawn
for the purpose of seeking
reimbursement of central share of arrears
to be paid to the State
University and College teachers. It was
also
clarified vide letter dated
14.8.2012 that reimbursement of 80% of4
central share of the additional
payment of arrears for the period
1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 will be
made by the Central Government in 2-3
installments, however, this would
be by way of reimbursement only,
after the State Government has
made the payment. Thus, as per the
provisions of the Scheme, the
State Government has to pay the
revision of pay-scale to the
employees under the Scheme and it is
only thereafter on demand made by
the State Government from the
Central Government, 80% of the
amount would be reimbursed by the
Central Government
and as such,
it is the
duty of the State
Government to pay the amount to
its employees.
It is not in dispute that the
said Scheme was essentially for
teachers in Central Universities
and the provisions of the Scheme
could be
made applicable by the State
Government to State
Universities and Colleges coming
under the purview of the State
Government, provided
the State Governments
adopted and
implemented the scheme as a
composite scheme and the regulations
laid down by the University
Grants Commission in this regard. For
implementation of the said
scheme, the Central Government had
decided to provide financial
assistance for the period 1.1.2006 to
31.3.2010 to the extent of 80% as
reimbursement to those State
Governments, who
may opt for
these revised pay-scales.
Furthermore, the State
Governments were to provide 20% of the
arrears from its own resources.
The said assistance was subject to the
condition that
the entire pay
revision package together
with all
conditions laid
down in this
regard by the
University Grants
Commission by
way of regulations,
would be implemented
as a
composite scheme
by the State
Governments without any
modification except
to the date
of implementation (
on or after
1.1.2006) and any higher scales
of pay which the State Governments
may decide
after taking into
consideration local conditions
into
consideration. However, the
assistance from the Central Government
would be limited to the scales of
pay as approved by the Central
Government under the Scheme.
It is
also not in
dispute that the
State Government had
accepted the terms and conditions
of the Scheme and as such, we
are of the view that once the
scheme has been accepted by the State
Government, it is the bounden
duty of the State to act thereupon. In
the instant case, on perusal of
the letter dated 14.8.2012, which has
been produced before us during
the course of arguments by the5
learned Counsel for the Union of
India, it transpires that the Central
Government has made it clear that
reimbursement of 80% of Central
share of the additionality of
payment of arrears for the period from
1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 would be made by the Central Government in
2-3 installments
by way of
reimbursement only after
the State
Government had made the payment
but the State Government has
not paid
the entire amount
of revised pay-scale
to the eligible
teachers on the pretext that
after receiving 80% share from the
Central Government,
the revised pay-scale would be paid to the
eligible teachers,
which vitiates the
dictum of the
scheme so
formulated for paying revised
pay-scale in pursuant to the VI Pay
Commission's Report.
Once it is
clearly mentioned in
the said
scheme that
after paying the
revised pay-scale to
the eligible
teachers make a request to this
effect will be made by the State
Government and
the Central Government
would there after
reimburse the same.
In view of the aforesaid facts,
we are of the view that the stand
taken by the State Government in
the impugned order is wholly
erroneous and cannot be
sustained. The proper course available to
the State Government is first to
pay the amount pursuant to the
recommendations of the UGC, which
admittedly has been accepted
by the State Government and
thereafter shall apply to the Central
Government for reimbursement of
the amount so incurred towards
the payment
of arrears of salary.
For the reasons aforesaid,
the
impugned order dated 21.8.2011 is
liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, impugned
order dated 21.8.2011
is hereby
quashed. The State Government is
directed to release the necessary
fund for payment of arrears of
salary of teachers of National Post
Graduate College, Barhalganj,
Gorakhpur within a maximum period of
one month, from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Before parting, we would like to
observe that if any request for
reimbursement of the amount is
made by the State Government,
then the Central Government will release the
necessary funds as per
the provisions of scheme as has
been assured by the Counsel for the
Union of India within a period of
three months thereafter.
The writ petition stands allowed
in above terms.
Order Date :- 17.1.2013
RBS/Ajit
