Past service in private aided colleges must be counted for Career Advancement Benefits without management-based distinction.

The applicant, a retired Professor of Hindi, served at Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Chandigarh, from 30.12.1991 until his superannuation on 31.12.2018

Prior to this, he rendered service as a Lecturer at GHG Khalsa College, Ludhiana (a privately aided college in Punjab) from 22.10.1984 to 30.12.1991

Although his appointment at the first college was regular, approved by Panjab University, and he applied to the Chandigarh Administration through the proper channel with an NOC, the respondents refused to count his past service (1984–1991) for the grant of Senior Scale, Selection Grade, and pay fixation under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

The respondents rejected his claim via a speaking order dated 13.03.2019, citing that service in a private college in another state is not countable under their rules and raising a plea of limitation/delay

1. Whether the previous service rendered by the applicant in a privately aided college in Punjab is to be counted for the purpose of placement in Senior Scale and Selection Grade under UGC guidelines

2. Whether the Original Application is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the time elapsed since the applicant's initial appointment in Chandigarh

The Tribunal applied Clause 8.0.0 of the UGC Notification, 1988 (and subsequent 2010 Regulations), which mandates that previous service as a Lecturer in a University or College should be counted for placement in Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided the post was in an equivalent scale and qualifications met UGC standards

It specifically relied on the principle affirmed in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration (CWP No. 2509/2017), which established that no distinction should be made regarding the nature of the management (private/aided/government) of the institution where previous service was rendered

Additionally, the Tribunal applied the principle of parity and non-discrimination under Article 14, noting that similar benefits had been granted to other lecturers like Mr. A.K. Taneja and Dr. B.C. Joshan

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, which was upheld by the Supreme Court

The court rejected the respondents' argument that service in a private aided college is excluded, noting that the Chandigarh Administration’s own notifications regarding UGC pay scales permit such counting without distinction of management types

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal found that the applicant had been consistently representing his case since 2009 while in service; the respondents’ failure to redress the grievance while granting similar benefits to other situated employees constituted "apparent discrimination," thus rendering the plea of limitation untenable

The respondents were directed to count the applicant's past service from 22.10.1984 to 30.12.1991 and grant all consequential benefits, including revised pay fixation and arrears, within two months