Case Note & Summary
The 28 appellants were working as Lecturers at Haryana Agricultural University and were selected in 1978 to undergo Ph.D. courses as in-service candidates. They joined the course in July and November 1978. Due to financial stringency, the University had prohibited in-service candidates from pursuing higher studies, and the appellants were permitted to join only according to the leave of the kind due to them, meaning they would not receive full salary and allowances during the study period. The appellants pursued the course until 1980-81 but were not paid leave salary. They filed Civil Writ Petition No. 702 of 1980 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which dismissed the petition on May 10, 1992, holding that the University's financial constraints justified the prohibition and that the appellants were not eligible for full pay except in accordance with the leave of the kind due. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. Their counsel argued that Statute 21(3) of the Haryana & Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1970 entitled in-service candidates who were granted admission to higher study to full pay and allowances, and that under Section 16(11), the salary and allowances could not be determined or withheld by the Vice Chancellor without Board approval. They further contended that after the prohibition was lifted on January 10, 1979, the University paid full salary to teachers permitted to undergo Ph.D., and non-payment to the appellants constituted discrimination under Article 14. The Court rejected all contentions. It noted that the order permitting the appellants to undergo the course clearly mentioned that they were entitled only to leave of the kind due. The Court held that when the appellants were permitted subject to that condition, they could not claim a higher right. It observed that Statute 21(3) was subject to conditions imposed by the University, and Section 16(11) was inapplicable because it related to initial fixation of salary, not payment during study leave. On Article 14, the Court found no discrimination because no teacher who was prohibited from receiving full salary during the same period was paid more; the teachers who received full salary were sent after the prohibition was lifted, a different factual scenario. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal without costs, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Study Leave and Pay - Conditional Permission to Undergo Ph.D. - Haryana & Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1970, Statute 21(3) - The appellants, in-service lecturers, were permitted to pursue Ph.D. as in-service candidates subject to the condition that they would be entitled only to leave of the kind due, not full pay and allowances. The court held that the University had the power to impose conditions on in-service candidates, and the appellants could not claim higher rights than those permitted by the condition. Held that the appellants were not eligible for full salary and allowances during the period 1978-79 to 1980-81. (Paras 3-4) B) Service Law - Salary Determination - Applicability of Section 16(11) - Haryana & Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1970, Section 16(11) - The appellants argued that without Board approval, the Vice Chancellor could not withhold salary and allowances. The court held that Section 16(11) related to initial fixation of pay and allowances and had no application to payment during study leave; thus the contention was rejected. Held that Section 16(11) was inapplicable to the facts of the case. (Para 4) C) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Article 14 Discrimination - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The appellants claimed discrimination because teachers sent after the prohibition was lifted on January 10, 1979 were paid full salary. The court held that no teacher who was prohibited from receiving full salary was paid more, so there was no invidious discrimination. Different treatment was justified by the change in financial policy. Held that Article 14 had no application as there was no arbitrary or unjust action violating equality. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether in-service candidates undergoing Ph.D. course were entitled to full pay and allowances under Statute 21(3) of the Haryana & Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1970; whether Section 16(11) of the Act required Board approval for withholding salary; whether denial of full pay constituted discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed without costs.
Law Points
- Conditional leave restricts entitlement to full pay and allowances
- Statute 21(3) subject to conditions imposed by University
- Section 16(11) inapplicable to payment during study leave
- No violation of Article 14 due to different circumstances after prohibition lifted
