F.I.REBELLO,J. - (1.) By the present petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing impugned orders dated 28-10-1992 and 1-12-1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 herein. The petitioner also prayed for declaration that the respondents are solely responsible for the payment of arrears of salary payable to the Demonstrators/Lecturers in question whose promotion has been held up and have no right to adjust or deduct the same from the salary or non-salary grants payable to the petitioners. By the Government notification dated 28-10-1992 the respondent No. 1 was pleased to issue set out that all the persons whose names are set out in the completing their tenure of three years on the post of demonstrators should be promoted as Lecturers and that the Government is according sanction for payment of their salary allowances, dues and arrears on account of fixation of their pay scales and that an amount of Rs. 6,83,000/- has been sanctioned. Thereafter the Government was pleased to order that as the society had given promotion to the persons whose names are set out therein as Demonstrators/Lecturers without the sanction of the Government, expenses in that respect should be recovered from the society and should be diverted towards the grants payable to the society. 1st December, 1992 is the corrigendum to the Government Resolution dated 28th October, 1992.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 college is affiliated to respondent No. 3 University. Respondent No. 3 prescribes the qualification for engagement of staff in the recognised and affiliated colleges. For that purpose the colleges are required to engage Demonstrators/Lecturers, Readers and Professors in terms of the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 together with the provisions of the Universities Act. Respondent No. 2 college was earlier affiliated with the Nagpur University. The statutes and ordinances framed by the Amravati University sets out the terms and conditions of the teaching staff like Demonstrators/Lecturers, Readers and others.
(3.) In pursuance to the ordinance framed by the University five persons whose names are set out in paragraph of the petition were appointed as Demonstrators on various dates between 6-1-1979 and 10-8-1979. They came to be confirmed on 23.12-1991. All of them were qualified having necessary qualification. Principal of petitioner No. 2 after seeking due permission from the Nagpur University treated the Demonstrators as Lecturers with effect from the date on which they have completed three years service. Four of them were promoted by resolution dated 18th September, 1982 w.e.f. 1st April,1982 and fifth was provisionally promoted w.e.f. 1-10-1982. It is then submitted that these five Demonstrators, who were upgraded as Lecturers, were claiming pay scales of Lecturers as sanctioned by University Grants Commission (UGC). They were urging the college not to treat them as Demonstrators but as Lecturers. That grievance was pending with the respondents. As the respondents failed to take any decision those five persons preferred Writ Petition No. 1164 of 1987 before this Court. They claimed relief to treat them as Lecturers in petitioner No. 2 college with effect from the date on which they had completed three years of service as Demonstrators and also claimed fixation of the salary accordingly and arrears of pay. That petition came to be disposed of by judgment dated 11th March, 1991. Respondent No. 2 was a party respondent. After that judgment the Government issued G. R, dated 20th October, 1992 and the corrigendum dated 1-12-1992 to treat the petitioners therein as Lecturers on their completing three years and also to pay them arrears as set out in the G. R. The G. R. however, directed that amount be adjusted from the salary grant of the petitioners. The petitioners made representation to the respondents on 26-11-1992. It was pointed out that the college is run on grant-in-aid basis. The salary grants are received from the Government and as such it will be improper to recover the arrears of salary from the college grant and to direct the college to bear the burden. It was also pointed out that the State Government by decision dated 28-10-1992 had approved the appointment of the Demonstrators as Lecturers and as such it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to pay the arrears of salary as directed by this Court. It is also pointed out that the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to non-salary grant to the extent of 90% of the total approved expenditure and the amount to this extent is reimbursed by the Government as per policy of the Government and the balance 10% has to be arranged by the college from Its own funds. The State Government, it was pointed out, cannot adjust and/or deduct the amount from the non-salary grants, legally payable to the college. It is further set out that the judgment of this Court is binding on the respondents and they have no authority to deny the benefits of salary and non-salary grants to the petitioners, college or society, and cannot be permitted to deduct the amount payable to the Demonstrators, who are upgraded as Lecturers, from the salary or non-salary grants payable to the college. The State Government, it is set out, is estopped from so doing based on the Doctrine of Estoppel and can also be prevented from effecting any deductions on account of the Doctrine of Waiver having waived their right to take appropriate decision considering that the judgment of this Court is binding on them.;