- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) ON the recommendation of the Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the year, 1972. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader and he acquired Ph.D. degree in the year, 2006. The petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.05.2008. Though, the petitioner acquired Ph.D. degree in the year, 2006, he was not granted the benefit of 3 noncompoundable increment allegedly in view of Clause 7 (iv) of letter dated 31.12.2008 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development and thus, the petitioner received lesser amount on account of gratuity and leave encashment etc. and his pension was wrongly fixed. In several other cases similarly situated persons have been granted similar benefits and the plea taken by the State Government/University for not granting benefit of increment, has been rejected by this Court, however, in the present proceeding, the respondents have again taken a similar stand, which is liable to be rejected. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 stating that a decision was taken to withheld annual increment of the teachers who were not possessing Ph.D. degree till they acquired Ph.D. degree. It is further stated that in view of Clause 12 in letter dated 13.11.2001 whereby a decision was taken that the teachers who were promoted under State sponsored time bound promotion scheme/other schemes, but who do not fulfill the minimum criteria as laid down by the UGC, would not be eligible for annual increment and for promotion. A high level Committee was constituted by the State Government to examine revision of payscale and service conditions of the teachers as recommended by the UGC and a report was submitted communicating that the UGC guidelines for promotion of the teachers were not followed which adversely affected the quality and coverage of higher education. In view of the recommendation of the Committee, resolution dated 20.11.2010 was issued notifying the revision of payscale of teachers of Universities and Colleges w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1, has been filed by the petitioner contending that, the stand taken by the respondent no. 1 in the present proceeding, is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in "Rajeshwar Pd. Verma & Others Vs. Vinoba Bhave University & Others" reported in 2009 (3) JLJR 221, and other cases against which Letters Patent Appeals were preferred which also stand dismissed. It has been further stated that in view of provision under Clause 22 of the Statute which provides for grant of increment, any condition imposed by the State Government denying the benefit of increments, would be contrary to such statutory provision and this cannot be given effect to.;