Holding

The University’s view of over‑payment is incorrect; the notice for recovery cannot be maintained and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the UGC pay scale as per the earlier Supreme Court direction.

Summary

The appellant, a former legal assistant/associate at Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, claimed entitlement to regularisation and the UGC pay scale of Rs.700‑1600 after a series of ad‑hoc appointments spanning over a decade. The University later issued a show‑cause notice alleging over‑payment because the UGC scale was allegedly granted contrary to a Supreme Court order of 16 September 1992, which had directed a consolidated salary based on the minimum of that scale. The High Court partially modified the order, directing that the appellant’s service be considered for regularisation but gave no further relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the University’s view of over‑payment was correct and whether the High Court erred in its assessment. Relying on the earlier Supreme Court decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, the Court held that the University’s order was based on the Committee’s recommendation and complied with the earlier direction, so the notice for recovery could not stand. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the UGC pay scale, and the appeal is disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to regularisation and the UGC pay scale despite the University’s claim of over‑payment.
Whether the University’s notice for recovery of alleged excess salary is maintainable.
Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 1992 order regarding consolidated salary for research associates.
Whether the appellant’s long, unblemished service and qualifications warrant regularisation.

Subjects

service lawregularisationUGC pay scaleresearch associateover‑paymentArticle 32consolidated salaryuniversity employmentequity

Judgment

YAMUNASHANKARSHARMA A
v.
STATE OF RAJAS THAN & ORS.

JANUARY 9, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Service Law:
+
Pay scale-Assistant Professor filed writ petition seeking direction to
University to grant pay scale of Rs.700-1600 recommended by UGC-This C
Court had directed that petitioner be allowed a consolidated salary
worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700 p.m., which was
the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600-0n recommendations of the
Committee constituted by Board of Management, University allowed the
UGC pay scales to the petitioner-Notice issued by University for recovery
on the ground that UGC scale was wrongly allowed to petitioner which
D
resulted in excess payment-Held, order was passed by University on the
basis of the recommendations of the Committee to pay the UGC pay scale
>
at a particular scale which was applicable at the relevant point of time-
Hence, Notice of recovery cannot be maintained.
E
Appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor of Law in College of
Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale of Assistant
Professor. In 1983, he was interviewed for the purposes of selection to the
post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. He, however, was not selected
and as a result whereof, his services were not continued after 31.5.1983.
After a gap of about nine months, he was again appointed in the University
F
on 23.2.1984 against the post of Legal Assistant/Associate but the
appointment was liable to be terminated without notice. As Legal Assistant/
Legal Associate, appellant was paid a consolidated salary ofRs.1,200 per
month which was enhanced to Rs.1,620 per month. He was terminated from
services w.e.f. 14.11.1988 on account of absence from duty. The absence G
was due to his having undertaken Ph.D work at Delhi University.

After acquiring the Ph.D Degree, he was again appointed by the
. . . ,. University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990 on
fixed salary ofRs.2,070 per month as stop-gap arrangement The appointment H
289
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to him
until 31.3.2003. After 31.3.2003 services were not extended, with the
result that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the University. -- '

Appellant along with other Research Assistants/Associates filed batch
of writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking
B directions to the University to grant to them the scale of Rs. 700-1600
recommended by the Grant Commission w.e.f 1.1.1973.

In that batch of writ petitions, this Court rejected the demand of the +
petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs.700-Rs.1600. This Court,
C however, directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated
salary to be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs.700 per
month, which was the minimum of the ,scale of Rs. 700-1600 and also
monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees
drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700 per month.

D The Vice Chancellor allowed the UGC pay scales to the appellant.
Though initially the appellant was allowed to draw the UGC pay scale, on
13.1.2003 notice was issued to show cause as to why the excess payment
made was not to be recovered from him. It was indicated that the UGC scale
was wrongly allowed to the appellant which resulted in excess payment.
Subsequently, Registrar of the University informed the Dean, College of
E
law, Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment to the appellant was
not extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the decision of the Board of
management. Aggrieved appellant successfully filed writ petition. On
appeal, the Division Bench partly modified the order and held that
regularization was not to be granted as claimed but directed that the
F appellant's case was to be considered on following the criteria as per the
applicable rules and that while subjecting appellant for selection process,
past service rendered by him was to be given due weightage.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court
did not consider the effect of the fact that the appellant was highly qualified
G and had rendered uninterrupted and unblemished service of more than a
decade; that to deny regularization would be inequitable and unjust and that
the notice on the ground that excess payment have been made is without
basis.

H Disposing of the appeals, the Court
1
I

YAMUNA SHANK.AR SHARMA v. STATE 291

HELD: 1. In *Secretary, State ofKarnataka, a Constitution Bench of A
this Court has considered the matter at great length. In view of what been
held therein, the conclusions of the High Court in the matter of
regularization suffered from no infirmity. [Para 12) [295-D, E)

*Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.,
B
[2006) 4 sec 1, relied on

2. The residual question is whether the University's view regarding
the alleged over payment is correct. In the order dated 27.12.1999 it was
indicsi.ted that the appellant will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-
13500 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. He was also treated to be entitled in the scale c
equivalent to Assistant Professor for the purpose of scale only not for
designation. This Court in its order dated 16.9.1992 directed that the
consolidated salary be worked out by placing the petitioners in the scale
ofRs.700-1600 which was the minimum in the scale and allowing benefits
thereof in the form of such allowance allowed to be a regular employee D
drawing a basic pay of Rs.700 per month. The order passed by the
University was on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee to pay
the UGC pay scale at a particular scale which was applicable at the relevant
point of time and revised pay scale. That being so, the view that he had been
paid contrary to the order of this Court is not correct and cannot be E
maintained. Accordingly, the notice for recovery cannot be maintained. To
that extent the appellant is entitled to the benefit.
[Paras 13, 14) [295-E-H, 296-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2007.
F
From the final Judgments and Orders dated 5.9.2003 and 5.2.2004 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (W) No. 407/2003 and D.B.C.M.R.P. No. 56/2003 respectively.

Jayant Das, K. Vijayan and Ajit Pudussery for the Appellant. G

Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat
Gupta and Shikha Tandon for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R.

A DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J.: 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, partly allowing the Civil
Special Appeal filed by the present Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia
University (in short the 'Union') and others questioning correctness of the
B order passed by the learned Single Judge. By the order which was impugned
before the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge held that order dated
25.4.2003 passed by the University was not sustainable and both the Vice
Chancellor and the University were directed to take back the present
appellant in service as Legal Assistant with all consequential benefits. The
c Single Judge directed the University ·and the Viee Chancellor to absorb the
present appellant on a regular post from the date when the vacancy arose
pursuant to the order of this Court dated 16.9.1992.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

D Appellant acquired L.L.M Degree in the year 1977. The Udaipur
University, re-christehed as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, appointed him
as Assistant Professor of Law in its College of Law, Udaipur on ad hoc basis
in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor. The post also entitled the
appellant to regular annual grade increments, which were consequently
E given during the course of his service in his capacity as assistant Professor.
Later, in the year 1983 the appellant was interviewed for the purposes of
selection to the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis. He, however,
was not selected and as a result whereof, his services were not continued
after 31.5 .1983. Thus, he worked as Assistant Professor from 14.11.1977 until
F 31.5.1983 in the regular pay scale of Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in
the college of Law, Udaipur University. After a gap of about nine months,
he was again appointed in the University on 23.2.1984 against the post of
Legal Assistant but the appointment was liable to be terminated without
notice. Subsequently, the post of Legal Assistant was re-designated as
Legal Associate by the order of the University dated 19.9.1987. As Legal
G Assistant/Legal Associate, appellant was paid a consolidated salary of
Rs.1,200 per month. By the order dated 19.6.1987 the consolidated salary was
enhanced to Rs.1,620 per month. On 3 .3 .1990, the University terminated the
services of the appellant with effect from 14.11.1988 on account of the

-
absence of the appellant from duty. The absence was occasioned by the fact
H of his having proceeded for undertaking Ph.D work at University of Delhi.
YAMUNASHANKARSHARMAv. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 293

4. After he acquired the Ph.D Degree, the appellant was again appointed A
by the University on the post of Legal Assistant by its order dated 8.2.1990
on fixed salary ofRs.2,070 per month as stop-gap arrangement until 3·1.3.1991
or till the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Legal
Associate, whichever was earlier. The appointment as Legal Associate
was extended from time to time and the final extension was granted to
him until 31.3.2003. After 31.3.2003 services were not extended, with
B
the result that the appellant ceased to be an employee of the University. In
this regard the Registrar of the University by its letter dated 25.4.2003
informed the Dean, College of Law, Udaipur that the term of temporary
appointment of the appellant as Legal associate has not been extended
beyond 31.3.2003. c
5. In order to complete the narration of facts, it is necessary to refer
to a development which took place as a result of filing of a batch of
writ petitions before this Court by Research Assistants/ Associates
on account of refusal of the University to grant to them the scale of D
Rs.700/1600 recommended by the Grant Commission with effect from
1.1.1973. Even though the University had implemented the UGC
recommendations and granted UGC scales in the case of members of
teaching staff, it failed to grant the benefit of UGC scale to the Research
Assistants/ Associates.
E
6. The appellant was also one of the writ petitioners before this Court.
In that batch of writ petitions this Court rejected the demand of the
petitioners for placement in the scale of Rs. 700-Rs. l 600. This Court, however,
directed that the Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary to
be worked out by placing them at a basic salary of Rs. 700 per month, which p
was the minimum of the scale of Rs. 700-1600. This Court also allowed
monetary benefits in the form of allowances admissible to regular employees
drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700 per month. It was clarified that the appointments
will continue to be what they were and the incumbents will not belong to
the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their consolidated salary
is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the time scale allowed to G
Research Assistant. It was further clarified that they will not be equated with
Lectures/Assistant Professors. They were to continue to carry on the same
dutie\>, which they were carrying out including assisting Assistant Professors.
The benefit of the revised consolidated salary was made available to them
from the date of their appointment as Research Associates. On behalf of the H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A petitioners it was urged before this Court that even though they had put in
long years as Research Associates they were still treated as ad hoc
employees with no security of service. This Court, keeping in view the plea
of the petitioners, observed as follows:-

"We would leave it to the authorities to consider the feasibility
B of preparing a scheme whereunder such research Associates can
be absorbed in the regular cadre of research Assistants as and
when vacancies arise. Since the educational requirements, process
+
of selection and jobs-charts are also identical such a scheme can
be of mutual benefit to the employees as well as the University, the
c employees getting security of tenure and University getting
experienced hands. We would expect the University to examine the
feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early date".

7. Keeping in view the order passed by this Court and on the
recommendation of the Committee constituted by the Board of Management,
D
the Vice Chancellor was allowed the UGC pay scales to the appellant. An
undertaking was given on 27.12.1999 pursuant to the aforesaid order.
Though initially the appellant was allowed to draw the UGC pay scale, on
13.1.2003 notice was issued to show cause as to why the excess payment
made was not to be recovered from him. Notice referred to the order of this
E Court dated 16.9 .1992 by which it was directed that Research Associates
were to be allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them
on a basic salary of Rs.700 per month. It was indicated that the UGC scale
was wrongly allowed to the appellant which resulted in excess payment.
Subsequently, Registrar of the University informed the Dean, College oflaw,
F Udaipur that the term of temporary appointment to the appellant was not
extended beyond 31.3.2003 as per the decision of the Board of management.
This order and the show cause notice formed subject matter of challenge
before the learned Single Judge who as noted above allowed the writ
petition.

G 8. The order was challenged before the Division Bench which as noted
above partly modified the order and held that regularization was not be
granted as claimed but directed that the appellant's case was to be considered
on following the criteria as per the applicable rules. It was further directed
that while subjecting appellant for selection process, pass service rendered
H by him was to be given due weightage. It was further directed that he was

'
YAMUNASHANKARSHARMA v. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 295

not to be denied regularization on the ground that he has become overage. A
But no other relief was given.

9. In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court did not consider the effect of the fact that the appellant
was highly qualified and had rendered uninterrupted and unblemished
service of more than a decade. To deny regularization would be in equitable
B
,.•'
and unjust. It was further submitted that the notice on the ground that
excess payment have been made is without basis. The conclusion that over
payment has been made is really not correct. This Court's order is being
wrongly interpreted.
c
IO. A review petition was filed before the High Court which was
dismissed. But, however, time for compliance was fixed.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported
the judgment of the High Court. D

12. The manner in which the claim for regularization has to be dealt has
been the subject matter of this decision in several cases.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors.,
[2006] 4 sec 1, a Constitution Bench of this Court has considered the matter E
at great length. In view of what been held therein, the conclusions of the
High Court in the matter of regularization suffered from no infinnity.

13. The residual question is whether the University's view regarding
the alleged over payment is correct. In the order dated 27.12.1999 it was F
indicated that the appellant will be placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-
13500 w.e.f. l.l.1996. He was also treated to be entitled in the scale

- equivalent to Assistant Professor for the purpose of scale only not for
designation. This Court in its order dated 16.9.1992 directed that the
consolidated salary be worked out by placing the petitioners in the scale of
Rs. 700-1600 which was the minimum in the scale and allowing benefits G
thereof in the form of such allowance allowed to be a regular employee
- drawing a basic pay of Rs. 700 per month.

14. The order passed by the University was on the basis of the
recommendations of the Committee to pay the UGC pay scale at a particular H
2% SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A scale which was applicable at the relevant point of time and revised pay
scale. That being so, the view that he had been paid contrary to the order
of this Court is not correct and cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the
notice for recovery ~annot be maintained. To that extent the appellant is
entitled to the benefit. ·

B 15. The appeals are disposed of. No costs.

D.G. Appeals disposed of. +·
'-.

-
-