ASMA SHAW vs. THE ISLAMIA COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND COMMERCE SRINAGAR KASHMIR

2023 INSC 690 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4951 of 2023 Asma Shaw …..Appellant                                 Versus The Islamia College of  Science & Commerce Srinagar Kashmir & Ors.              …..Respondents J U D G M E N T Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTS On the basis of an advertisement published by 1. th the   6   respondent   –   the   University   of   Kashmir,   the appellant   applied   for   the   post   of   Lecturer   in   the th th Academic Staff College of the 6   respondent.   The 6 respondent appointed the appellant to the said post on th st tenure   basis   from   08   September   2001.     The   1 respondent­College which is a college fully aided by the State Government published an advertisement inviting applications   for   various   posts   including   the   post   of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.08.08 18:07:26 IST Reason: Lecturer in English.   The appellant applied as an in­ Page 1 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 service candidate and her application was forwarded by th the Academic Staff College of the 6  respondent to the st 1   respondent.     Accordingly,   the   appellant   was appointed   as   a   Lecturer   in   English   on   a   regular st temporary basis with the 1   respondent college w.e.f. th 16  June 2005.  The appellant was initially appointed th by the 6  respondent in the pay scale of Rs.8000­275­ st 13500.  The 1  respondent appointed the appellant in the same pay scale.   However, her pay admissible on st the date of her appointment with the 1  respondent was not   protected.     Therefore,   the   appellant   made   a st representation   to   the   1   respondent   to   grant   pay nd protection.     On   02   January   2012,   the   College st Executive   Committee   of   the   1   respondent   took   a decision not to grant pay protection to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was holding a tenure post of a limited duration with the Academic Staff College of th the 6  respondent.  The case of the appellant was again considered by the College Executive Committee of the th first respondent on 28   October 2014 and the same decision was taken which  was communicated to the th appellant by a letter dated 26  November 2014. 2. Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   decision,   the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court of th Jammu & Kashmir.  By judgment dated 24  September 2018, learned Single Judge allowed the petition and Page 2 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 st directed   the   1   respondent   to   grant   benefit   of   pay protection to the appellant and to pay the consequential th arrears.     By   the   impugned   judgment   dated   25 February   2022,  a   Division  Bench   of  the  High   Court interfered and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. SUBMISSIONS 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appointment of the appellant was not on a tenure post but it was on a regular post.  The initial appointment of the appellant was on a tenure basis   and   as   per   the   Guidelines   for   Academic   Staff Colleges issued by the University Grants Commission, after assessment of the performance of the appellant, the tenure of the appellant was extendable up to the age of 62 years.  Learned counsel pointed out that as th provided   in   the   advertisement   published   by   the   6 respondent, the appellant was granted the benefit of Government   Provident   Fund­cum­Pension­cum­ Gratuity.  He submitted that in terms of Article 77­D of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (for short, ‘the Regulations’) the appellant was entitled to the benefit of pay protection as she was not covered by an exception carved out in the form of third proviso to Article   77­D.     He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the Division Bench has committed an error by holding that Page 3 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 the post to which the appellant was appointed by the th 6  respondent was a temporary or ad­hoc post. st Learned counsel appearing for the 1  respondent 4. while supporting the view taken by the Division Bench urged that the appointment of the appellant was not on a   permanent   basis   but   was   for   a   fixed   tenure. Therefore,   the   third   proviso   to   Article   77­D   was applicable.  He submitted that in any event, Article 77­ D was not applicable to the appellant as she was no th longer   in   the   employment   of   the   6   respondent­ University.  He urged that the appointment made by the st 1   respondent of the appellant to the post of Lecturer was a fresh appointment and, therefore, there was no question of fixing her pay by protecting the pay which th she   was   lastly   drawing   while   working   with   the   6 respondent.  His submission is that the view taken by the Division Bench was the correct view. OUR VIEW 5. We   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions and   perused   the   pleadings   and   the   documents   on record.  Though the learned counsel appearing for the st 1  respondent tried to submit that the Regulations were not applicable to the appellant, such a stand was not taken   either   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   before   the High Court or in the counter affidavit filed before this Court.   In   fact,   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the Page 4 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 st Principal   of  the  1   respondent,   a   specific   stand   has been taken that the appellant is disentitled to any pay protection as she does not meet the requirements of Article   77­D   of   the   Regulations.     In   clause   (a)   of nd paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit  filed by the 2 respondent, it is stated thus :  “6. … … … (a) The Petitioner herein is not entitled to   any   pay   protection   inasmuch   as her   case   does   not   meet   the requirements   of   Article   77­D   of   the Jammu   and   Kashmir   Civil   Service Regulations, 1956, as is applicable to the   employees   of   the   College,   of holding   a   post   on   substantive capacity.   The Petitioner was admittedly working   on   tenure   basis   in   the University   of   Kashmir   for   a   limited period.     A   bare   reading   of   the   order dated   08.09.2001   appointing   the Petitioner as Lecturer in the University makes it clear that the said appointment was   on   tenure   basis.     The   said   post being on tenure basis cannot be termed ‘a   post   on   substantive   capacity’.     As such,   her   previous   service   in   the University   cannot   be   counted   towards her seniority and other service benefits.”  (emphasis added) st nd Thus, the stand of the 1  and 2  respondents was that st the staff of the 1  respondent was governed by Article 77­D.     But,   the   case   of   the   appellant   falls   in   the Page 5 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77­ D.     Thus,   it   was   never   in   dispute   that   the   said Regulations   were   applicable   to   the   appellant   while th serving   with   the   Academic   Staff   College   of   the   6 respondent and continued to apply even after she took st up employment with the 1  respondent. 6. Article   77­D   deals   with   the   fixation   of   pay   in cases of direct recruits.  Article 77­D starts with a  non obstante   clause   which   provides   that   notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations, the provisions of Article   77­D   shall   govern   the   pay   of   a   government servant who is appointed to another service/cadre or department on  direct  recruitment   basis.     It  provides that such a person shall draw pay at the minimum of st the time scale.  However, under the 1  proviso, it is laid down   that   where   a   government   servant   was immediately before such appointment holding a post in substantive capacity and was drawing pay equal to or more than the time scale of the service, his pay at the time of subsequent appointment to the new post shall be regularized.  In short, in such a case, the pay drawn by   the   government   servant   at   the   time   of   his appointment to another service remains protected.  The third proviso is the exception to the rule contained in st nd the   main   part   of   Article   77­D.     The   1   and   2 respondents are relying upon the said proviso.  It reads Page 6 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 thus :  “Provided also that the benefit of this rule shall not be available to a person who at the   time   of   his   appointment   to   the   new service/post was holding a post on adhoc basis   or   was   working   against   a leave/suspension or any other short term vacancy.” Thus, the only question for consideration is whether the appellant was holding a post in Academic Staff College on   ad­hoc   basis   or   was   working   against   a leave/suspension or any other short­term vacancy.  For the reasons which we have set out hereafter, the said question   will   have   to   be   answered   in   favour   of   the appellant. 7. We have perused the advertisement published by th the 6   respondent for inviting applications to various posts (total 42).  The post at serial no.2 is of Lecturer in the Academic Staff College for which the appellant had applied.  There are three columns in the portion of the st said advertisement which describes the posts.  The 1 nd column   is   of   Department/Institute;   the   2   column rd contains the description of the posts and the 3  column contains the number of posts.  As against some of the posts, it is specifically mentioned that either the post was temporary or was a ‘plan post’.   Against some of the posts, it is mentioned that the same was temporary but   was   likely   to   become   permanent.     What   is Page 7 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 important is that against the post held by the appellant, there is no remark that either it was a temporary post or a plan post.  What is written in the bracket against the said post is “tenure basis”.  Thus, the post was not ad   hoc   or   temporary   or   plan   post.     The   post   was permanent on which appointment was to be made on tenure basis. 8. Clause III of the advertisement provides that the substantive posts shall carry G.P. Fund­cum­Pension­ cum­Gratuity or C.P. Fund benefits at the option of the appointee.   The appellant was granted the benefit of G.P. Fund which is another indication that her post was substantive.  9. There is a difference between a tenure post and an appointment made on a regular post on a tenure basis.  The advertisement mentions that the post is not a tenure post but the appointment to that post will be made on a tenure basis.   The reason for this is the Guidelines for Academic Staff Colleges framed by the University   Grants   Commission.     The   Guidelines provided that the appointment to the post of director, reader   and   lecturer   will   be   on   a   tenure   basis   for   a period   of   five   years.     There   is   a   provision   for continuation   of   appointment   on   these   posts   on assessment of the incumbent concerned by a committee having the same constitution as for their appointment, Page 8 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 subject to the condition that the incumbent on these posts   will   retire   at   the   age   of   62   years   or   as   per prevailing norms of the university.  Accordingly, in the th order of appointment issued by the 6  respondent, it is specifically mentioned that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in the Academic Staff College in the pay scale of Rs.8000­275­13500 on tenure basis.   In fact, the   qualifications   for   the   post   of   reader/lecturer   in Academic   Staff   Colleges   clearly   lay   down   that   the appointment to the post of director, reader and lecturer will be on tenure basis for a period of five years with a provision   for   continuation   on   these   posts   on assessment of the incumbent concerned subject to the condition   that  incumbent  will  retire   after   completing the age of 62 years. 10. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant with th the Academic Staff College of the 6   respondent was not against a short­term vacancy.   The appellant was not   holding   the   post   of   Lecturer   in   Academic   Staff College on ad­hoc basis and was not working against leave/suspension   vacancy.     Therefore,   the   exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77­D will not apply as the appointment of the appellant was on a substantive post on a tenure basis with a provision to continue the same till the age of 62 years. Page 9 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 st 11. The   advertisement   published   by   the   1 th respondent on 11  June 2004 specifically permitted in­ service   candidates   to   apply   by   sending   their applications   through   the   respective   appointing nd authorities.   Accordingly, by a letter dated 22   June th 2004,   the   Assistant   Registrar   of   the   6   respondent­ University forwarded the application of the appellant to nd the 2  respondent.  It is specifically stated in the said letter that the appellant was working on a tenure basis. th Accordingly, by the order dated 16   June 2005, the st appellant was appointed on the establishment of the 1 respondent   on   probation   for   a   period   of   two   years. Thus, this is a case of a government servant taking employment in another service or cadre. 12. At this stage, it may be noted that as provided in st the Constitution of the 1  respondent College, the same is   completely   financed   by   J&K   Government   for   both plan and non­plan accounts.  In the Introductory Note st to   the   Constitution,   it   is   mentioned   that   the   1 respondent was established at the instance of the then Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir.   Moreover, the Constitution   provides   that   the   Governing   Body   shall carry   out   the   business   and   affairs   of   the   College   of which 70% must be members nominated by the State Government.   In fact, it is provided that the Hon’ble Chief   Minister   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir   will   be   the Page 10 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 Chairman of the Body.   That is how the Government st has all pervasive control over the 1  respondent.  That st is the reason why while filing the pleadings, the 1  and nd 2   respondents   have   proceeded   on   the   footing   that Article   77­D   was   applicable   to   those   government st servants   who   were   appointed   to   a   post   in   1 respondent­College. 13. The entire approach of the Division Bench was erroneous   when   it   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the appellant   was   not   appointed   on   a   substantive   basis and,   therefore,   she   does   not   satisfy   the   criteria   laid down   by   Article   77­D.     The   Division   Bench   has completely ignored that the only exception carved out to Article 77­D was in respect of a government servant holding   a   post   on   ad­hoc   basis   or   working   against leave/suspension   or   any   other   short­term   vacancy. Hence, the case of the appellant was not covered by the said exception carved out to the third proviso by Article 77­D. 14. Therefore, the impugned decision of the Division Bench   cannot   be   sustained   and   the   decision   of   the learned Single Judge which directs that pay protection should be given to the appellant, needs to be restored. 15. Accordingly,   by   setting   aside   the   impugned th judgment and order dated 25  February 2022 passed in LPASW No.184 of 2018 we restore the judgment dated Page 11 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23 th 24   September 2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge   of   the   Jammu   &   Kashmir   and   Ladakh   High Court   in   Writ   Petition   (SWP   No.1735   of   2015).     We st nd direct the 1  and 2  respondents to pass a formal order giving the benefit of pay protection to the appellant. The order shall be passed within a period of one month from   today.     Within   a   period   of   three   months   from today, arrears payable to the appellant on account of fixation of pay as aforesaid shall be paid to her. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order 16. as to costs. …….………………………………..J. [ABHAY S. OKA]         ..…..………………………………..J. [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA] New Delhi Dated : August 08, 2023. Page 12 of 12 C.A.No.4951/23