Junior In Cadre Can't Draw Higher Pay Than Senior Solely Due To Implementation Of A New Scheme: Kerala High Court Reiterates

The Kerala High Court on Thursday reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre. 

A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that 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 the juniors.

Nevertheless, the Court also observed :

"Though, it is true that Rule 28(A) of Part I KSR would apply only in cases where the anomaly arises out of fixation of pay pursuant to a pay revision order and that it does not apply to an anomaly arising as a result of time bound higher grade promotions and that as the anomaly is not as a result of a fixation of pay, seniors salary will not be stepped up to that of the juniors, it is also true that it is not a universal principal that the senior in a cadre must always draw higher scale than his junior and that on valid grounds the junior may draw higher scale than senior."

The respondent herein was working as the Assistant Professor at the Kerala Agricultural University in 1989 during which time, she acquired a PhD in 1998.

Meanwhile, the State issued an order in 1991 introducing the scheme of the University Grants Commission with effect from 1986, whereby the respondent was inducted to the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 23.02.1989.

Pursuant to this, the 1996 UGC Scheme was introduced in the University, and she was designated as Associate Professor (Senior Scale) and was further granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 07.11.1998 under the conditions of the 1996 Scheme.

Thereafter, the respondent was granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Professor from 2006 under the 1996 UGC Scheme on completing eight years in the post of Associate Professor. However, her basic pay was fixed as Rs. 17,300, resulting in a situation of the pay being on a lower scale despite a promotion.

In the meantime, the 2006 UGC Scheme was introduced in the University. Thereafter, one Dr. L.Girija Devi, who was directly recruited in 1987 and who had obtained PhD in 2006 was granted Career Advancement Promotion to the post of Associate Professor in 2006.

The salary fixed under the 2006 UGC Scheme was Rs.60,080/-, whereas the respondent who became a Professor in 2006 was granted a payscale of only Rs.59,280/- resulting in the junior getting a higher scale of pay compared to her, despite both of them being equally qualified and working in equivalent posts.

Aggrieved by this, she sent a representation inter alia pointing out that she was denied normal increment from February and that after granting two advance increments from 7-11-1998, the same was granted only from November.

Appearing through Advocate P.V. Jayachandran, she contended that the Kerala Service Rules and the Kerala State Subordinate Rules are applicable to the University employees, and therefore, action ought to have been taken on her representation for rectifying the anomalies that crept in the payslip.

The revised statement of fixation of pay under the 2006 Scheme was also produced to point out that the fixation of salary was wrong. As such, she argued that the anomaly has to be corrected by stepping up her salary to that of the junior.

A Single Judge in 2020 allowed the respondent's plea and directed the University to re-fix the salary of the petitioner on the basis of the salary of the immediate junior and grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months

However, the University filed a review petition pointing out that there is no anomaly, as Dr Devi received the benefit of the 2006 UGC Regulations, which awarded three advance increments as opposed to the respondent who got only two advance increments based on the 1996 UGC Regulations.

It was argued that the shortfall in her pay to that of a junior was not a consequence of any pay fixation or error from the part of the University and that she was not entitled to the relief claimed. This review petition was also dismissed by the single bench. 

The University approached the High Court in appeal. 

Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu instructed by Standing Counsel Robson Paul appeared for Kerala Agricultural University and contested the decision of the Single Judge. 

The Court placed reliance on Director, NIT Calicut & Ors v. Dr Muraleedharan C. & Ors [2020 SCCOnline Kerala 1755] to decide that the faculty members who benefited from the 2006 UGC Scheme did not possess any extra qualifications to make them eligible for additional pay over similarly placed colleagues.

Therefore, the Court reiterated that when the junior had acquired a qualification that the senior had acquired much earlier, under no circumstance can it can be treated as an acquisition of the qualification higher than that of the senior.

As such, the appeal was dismissed and the University was asked to follow the directions of the Single Judge within 2 months. 

Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

Click Here To Read/Download The Order