Facts
The petitioner completed his LL.M. in 2015 and was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the University’s Department of Law on 1 October 2018.
Source reference: pp. 3–7He sought two non-compounded advance increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, by representation dated 3 September 2020.
Source reference: pp. 3–7The University stated that the State had sought clarification from the UGC and that it would act after receiving clarification; the State likewise submitted that clarification remained pending.
Source reference: pp. 3–7The petitioner then sought mandamus for the increments, pay revision and arrears.
Source reference: pp. 3–7Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s LL.M. qualification entitled him to two non-compounded increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018
Source reference: pp. 4–5, 7–82. Whether the State could be directed to decide the petitioner’s claim while the requested UGC clarification remained pending
Source reference: pp. 5–8Law Applied
Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, as set out in the judgment, provides for two non-compounded increments at the entry level for the relevant postgraduate qualification.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The Court also considered the State Government’s order concerning incentives for higher qualifications and the subsequent request for UGC clarification; it did not identify or rely on any judicial precedent.
Source reference: pp. 5–8Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained his LL.M. before appointment and had been awaiting a decision on his request since 2020.
Source reference: pp. 7–9It observed that Regulation 19.1(iii) entitled him to the increments, but also considered the State’s position that clarification had been sought and the University’s reliance on that pending clarification.
Source reference: pp. 7–9Rather than grant the increments directly, the Court directed the Government to make a decision promptly and communicate it to the University, taking account of the potential arrears and consequential financial burden.
Source reference: pp. 7–9Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Government to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to the increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) and complete the exercise within six weeks.
If found eligible, he was to receive the benefit from the date he became eligible, together with the consequential benefits.
Source reference: pp. 8–9Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
the Act (alias, unresolved)1
Original Court PDF
DR SREE KRISHNA BHARADWAJ H S/O H RAGHAVENDRACHARvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
