This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner avouching that he is entitled to get two advance increments for having Ph.D. with effect from 01.01.1996. He has, in this writ petition, made the following prayers:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writs directions or orders calling for the records leading up to Ext.P8 and quash the clarification in Ext.P7 that the benefit of two advance increments for having PhD would be admissible with effect from 27.7.1998.
ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of rwo advance increments for having PhD with effect from 1.1.96.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writs directions or orders compelling the third respondent to grant two advance increments with arrears to the eptitioner in view of Clause 6.19 and Ext.P3 order with effect from 1.1.1996 and to disburse the same forthwith.
iv. Grant such other relief deeems to be fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
v. To award the cost to the petitioner of these proceedings."
WPC 37005/08 2
2. I have heard Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the fourth respondent.
3. Even though there are several contentions and contests mounted by the petitioner and respondents against each other, I do not propose to go into it in detail, since I notice that another learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)No.6973/2010 had already considered all these issues in favour of similarly placed persons, who were the petitioners in that case. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted as under:
"I have considered the contentions advanced. The qestion raised before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1044 of 2005 and connected cases was whether grant of advance increments of acquisition of Ph.D to persons who acquiredthe said qualification prior to 1996 was proper. The State of Kerala had also preferred W.A.Nos.1217 and 1396 of 2005, where the only question was whether the grant of advance increments is applicable in the case of Readers. In W.A.No.118 of 2005, the quesiton was whether the Ph.D should be in the relevant subject. These were the only matters considered by the Division Bench. After considering the contentions WPC 37005/08 3 advanced, the Division Bench held that the pay revision was effective from 1.1.1996 and advance increments would be applicable to teachers who acquired Ph.D before the said date as well. The writ appeals filed by the UGC and the Union Government as well as the State of Kerala were dismissed. The appellants were held entitled to advance increments in the light of Exhibit R1(a) communication of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The question whether the date of effect could be restricted to 27.7.1998 was not considered by the Division Bench. This question has been pointedly considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Exhibit P4 judgment. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that W.A.No.1635 of 2004, which was filed by the University against the said judgment, had been dismissed confirming Exhibit P4. Exhibit P4 judgment contains a specific declaration that the clause in the Government order dated 31.8.2001 to the effect that those who acquired Ph.D before 1.1.1996 will be eligible for two advance increments only from 27.7.1998 is unconstitutional. In the above view of the matter, since it is specifically contended that Exhibit P4 judgment has become final, I am of the opinion that the declaration contained in the said judgment should govern the issue raised in these writ petitions as well.
In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that the petitioners will be entitled to two advance increments with effect from 1.1.996 itself. Consequential orders shall be passed and all benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
WPC 37005/08 4
4. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge in detail. Since it is the specific case of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the judgment extracted above has been delivered without noticing the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in W.A.No.118/2005 and specifically to the observations contained in paragraph 12 thereof and since the underpinning of the respondents' case against the petitioner is based on paragraph 12 of the said judgment, I deem it apposite to extract the same as under:
"From the above, it can be seen that whatever little doubt one had in the matter of extending the benefit to thsoe who acquired Ph.D. Prior to 1.1.1996 and also as to whther such benefits are applicable to Readers, the answer is to be beyond doubt that all teachers including Readers, Professors and Principals who required Ph.D during their service even prior to 1.1.1996 and those who were nto given the benefit of advance increment as per the ealier Career Advacement Scheme shall also be given the benefit of two advance increments. So however, the same will be applicable from 27.7.1998. Therefore, whatever be the position as it stood at the time of rendering the judgment by the Division Bench in W.A.2235/2004, the same has since been changed by the subsequent WPC 37005/08 5 issuance of the letter which is produced as Ext.R1(a) in W.A. 118/2005 by the Government of India. It has to be noticed that the decision of the Division Bench was rendered on 28.3.2005 whereas Ext.R1(a) in W.A. 118/2005 was issued on 14.11.2005. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that in view of the position as clarified in the letter Ext.R1(a) it has to be held that all those who acquired Ph.D degree during their service period including Readers, Professors and Principals - will be entitled to the advance increments which will be applicable from 27.7.1998."
5. I see that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of W.P.(C)No.6973/2010, has noticed the observations of the Division Bench and has then taken a specific view, which is extracted above. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has adverted to this judgment and found unequivocally that the Division bench of the Court has held that the pay revision was effective from 01.01.1996 and that advance increments would be applicable to teachers who acquired Ph.D before the said date as well.
6. I am in respectful confirmation of the observations, findings and conclusions of the learned Single in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6973/2010 and find WPC 37005/08 6 no compelling reason to deviate therefrom.
In such view of the matter, I allow this writ petition and quash Exhibit P7 and declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments because he had acquired Ph.D. with effect from 01.01.1996. Having thus declared, the petitioner would be entitled to the two advance increments with effect from 01.01.1996 along with all the benefits and such consequential orders shall be passed by the competent among the respondents to grant the petitioner such benefits and to disburse it to him as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv