6th UGC Scheme - Teacher Who Availed Advance Increments Based On M.Phil Can't Seek Increments Based On Subsequently Acquired Ph.D : Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has held that a teacher, who entered service with M.Phil and was awarded two advance increments on the basis of the M.Phil degree, and who subsequently acquired Ph.D while in service, would not be entitled to three additional non-compounded increments provided in the State Government order based on the Sixth UGC Scheme.

A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, observed that the teacher  could not be regarded as a teacher in service who has been awarded Ph.D at the time of coming into force of the subsequent Government Order in terms of the Sixth UGC Scheme entitling teachers who completed their Ph.D. in service to three non-compounded increments. 

"The pointed question is as to whether the petitioner could be regarded as a teacher in service who has been awarded Ph.D at the time of coming into force of Ext.P4 order.

If a person like the petitioner who has been awarded Ph.D about two years prior to the coming into force of Ext.P4 order and who was governed by Clause 6.17 of Ext.P2 order is regarded as a teacher in service who has been awarded Ph.D at the time of coming into force of Ext.P4 order, then all similar teachers who were governed by Clause 6.19 of Ext.P2 order would also fall under Clause 10.5, as the Sixth Scheme of the UGC .... only precludes teachers who have already availed the benefit of advance increments from possessing Ph.D at the entry level under the earlier Scheme, from claiming advance increments under the Sixth Scheme in terms of Clause 7(xxi) therein.

If that be so, they can also claim three non-compounded increments in addition to the two advance increments which have been granted to them in terms of Clause 6.19 of Ext.P2 order. Such an inference, according to us, cannot be made, for if such an inference is made, those who have entered service with Ph.D when Ext.P2 order was in force will have to be satisfied with four increments, whereas those who have entered service without Ph.D, but acquired Ph.D while in service, will be able to claim five increments, two under the Fifth Scheme and three under the Sixth Scheme", it was observed. 

Brief Facts

As per the factual matrix, the petitioner, who was a teacher in an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University, had entered service as Lecturer and retired as an Associate Professor. When the petitioner entered service, he had M.Phil degree, along with the other requisite qualifications. During this time, it was the State Government order based on the Fifth UGC Scheme that had been applicable, as per which two advance increments would be admissible to those who hold M.Phil. degree at the time of recruitment as Lecturer. The petitioner was accordingly granted the benefit. It was while the petitioner was in service that he acquired Ph.D degree. Although aforementioned order issued by the State government in terms of the Fifth UGC Scheme provided for one more advance increment for those teachers with M.Phil who acquire Ph.D degree within two years of recruitment, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of the said additional increment, as he could not acquire Ph.D degree within two years of recruitment.

During this time, the Government implemented the Sixth UGC Scheme in the State, with effect from September 1, 2008. As per the subsequent order, teachers who complete their Ph.D degree while in service were to be entitled to three non-compounded increments, if such Ph.D is in the relevant discipline and had been awarded by a University complying with the process prescribed by the UGC for enrolment, course work, evaluation, and so on.

It is the petitioner's case that since he was a teacher in service who had been been awarded Ph.D degree at the time of coming into force of the Sixth UGC Scheme, he would be entitled to three additional non-compounded increments as stipulated in the subsequent order, as well. However, his request regarding the same before the Director of Collegiate Education (DCE) was rejected stating that since he had already been given two advance increments on the strength of his M.Phil degree, he would not be entitled to any more increments for the Ph.D. degree since he couldn't acquire the latter within 2 years of the recruitment. After 4 years, the petitioner made a fresh application before the DCE, for one more additional increment, which was also rejected. 

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition after 2 years of his retirement, challenging these orders of the DCE. He also sought for a direction to the State and its officials to sanction to him three non-compounded increments also on the strength of the Ph.D acquired by him while in service and disburse the consequential benefits. 

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and issued the direction sought for by the petitioner. It is challenging the said decision of the Single Judge that the present writ appeal was filed. 

Division Bench Ruling

The Division Bench noted that after the petitioner's initial request had been turned down by the DCE, he had not pursued the matter again for a period of 4 years. After the fresh representation to the Principal was also turned down, he only filed the writ petition again after almost 2 years of his retirement. 

"In light of the facts narrated above, according to us, the claim of the petitioner is per se stale and this Court ought not have entertained the writ petition", the Court noted. It thereby embarked to ascertain the correctness of the decision rendered by the Single Judge. 

The Court in this case observed the the various clauses of the two Schemes of the UGC and discerned that the case of the petitioner could not be regarded as a teacher in service who had been awarded Ph.D at the time of coming into force of the subsequent government order falling within the scope of Clause 10.5 of the said order. It is noted that Clause 10.4 of the order deals with teachers who acquire Ph.D while in service after the implementation of the said order, while Clause 10.5 provides that teachers in service who have been awarded Ph.D at the time of coming into force of the Sixth Scheme of the UGC are also entitled to award of three non-compounded increments even if the University awarding such Ph.D has not yet been notified by the UGC as having complied with the process prescribed by the UGC.

"We take this view also for the reason that it has been clarified by the Government in Ext.P5 order that those who have already availed the benefit of advance increments at the earlier scheme for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil at the entry level or for acquiring Ph.D/M.Phil in service shall not be entitled to the benefit of increments under the Sixth UGC Scheme, except as provided therein specifically. The effect of the said clause is that those who are governed by the earlier scheme for claiming advance increments on the strength of their Ph.D either at the entry level or while in service will not be entitled to claim increments as per the Sixth Scheme except as provided for in Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is not under challenge. It does not also confer any right to persons like the petitioner to claim the non-compounded increments in terms of Ext.P4 order", the Court clarified. 

It therefore allowed the writ appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. 

The appellants in this case were represented by Senior Government Pleader B. Vinitha. The respondents were represented by the Standing Counsel of Calicut University Advocate P.C. Sasidharan, and Advocates Abhay Ferdinand and C.V. Alexander. 

Case Title: State of Kerala rep. by Additional Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Dr. Louis J. Kattady & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment