Remained Silent Till 2016: Rajasthan HC Modifies Order On Payment Of Benefits To Lecturer From 1998 When She Got PhD, Says She Caused Delay

The Rajasthan High Court modified an order passed by the State Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal which directed a college to grant two annual increments to an Economic lecturer from the date when she completed her Ph.D in 1998, after noting that the latter had raised demand for benefits only in 2016. In doing so the court observed when the lecturer did not make any...
The Rajasthan High Court modified an order passed by the State Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal which directed a college to grant two annual increments to an Economic lecturer from the date when she completed her Ph.D in 1998, after noting that the latter had raised demand for benefits only in 2016.
In doing so the court observed when the lecturer did not make any written application for benefits of arrears after passing her Ph.D Degree, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to issue directions to the college management to grant her two annual increments with effect from the date when she passed and completed her Ph.D Degree.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order observed that the lecturer "remained silent" from 1998 to 2016 without making any request or application for grant for benefits and had herself caused delay in approaching the Tribunal.
"Perusal of the record indicates that the respondent No.1 was appointed as a Lecturer-Economics in the petitioner-department and during her tenure, she pursued her Ph.D and thereafter, she received her Ph.D degree in the year 1998. The documents annexed with her application before the Tribunal along with the application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989, indicates that for the first time, a demand was raised by the respondent No.1 for grant of arrears, in the year 2016, prior to that no written application was submitted by her with the petitioner-management along with the requisite degree
Once this fact has been established on record that prior to 01.08.2016, neither any request was made by the respondent No.1 nor any application in writing was submitted by her for grant of benefits of arrears after passing her Ph.D Degree, hence, there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal for issuing directions to the petitioner-management for grant of two annual increments to the respondent with effect from the date when she passed and completed her Ph.D Degree. The respondent No.1 remained silent from the date of passing of Ph.D Degree i.e. from the year 1998 till 2016. She herself woke up in the year 2016 and submitted an application for grant of benefits. Thereafter, she herself caused delay in approaching the Tribunal by way of filing an application under Section 21 of the Act of 1989".
The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Union of India & Ors. v Tarsem Singh in which identical situation was dealt with by the Apex Court, and it was held that if a claim was raised after a great delay, the arrears would be limited to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in the College, and during her tenure, she completed her Ph.D in 1998. To claim the benefits of annual increments pursuant to her PhD, she raised the demand, for the first time, in 2016, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The College was directed to grant her two annual increments with effect from the date of completion of her PhD in 1998. This was challenged by the College.
The court thus modified the Tribunal's order to state that the lecturer would be entitled to get the benefits of two annual increments with effect from August 1, 2018–when she submitted the first application for grant of benefit of arrears with the college management.
"The petitioner-management is directed to make payment to two annual increments and accordingly, re-fixation of her salary and all consequential benefits be made to the respondent No.1 with effect from 01.08.2016 with interest," the court added.
The court said that in case the college management faces any difficulty in complying with the court order, a letter be written to the State requesting the service book of the petitioner, with the assurance that the same would be returned after compliance of this order.
The plea was thus disposed of.
Case Title: Managing Committee & Anr. v Dr. Vijay Laxmi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 98