Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by directly recruited Assistant Professors (the appellants) against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which had set aside the Single Judge's order directing the State to step up their pay under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002. The background of the case dates back to 1984-1995 when 111 persons were engaged as ad hoc lecturers in government colleges. Subsequently, the University Grants Commission (UGC) framed regulations allowing counting of ad hoc services for senior scale and selection grade. The State issued resolutions in 1999, 2011, and 2014 to count such services, and in 2015 granted senior scale and selection grade to 85 eligible erstwhile ad hoc lecturers. This resulted in those 85 Assistant Professors (juniors in terms of regular appointment) receiving higher pay than the directly recruited Assistant Professors (seniors in terms of regular appointment) who were appointed in 2001 through the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). The directly recruited Assistant Professors sought stepping up of their pay under Rule 21, which provides for stepping up of pay of a senior when a junior's pay is fixed higher due to promotion. The Single Judge allowed their petition, holding that grant of senior scale/selection grade under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) amounts to promotion, and thus Rule 21 applied. The Division Bench reversed this, holding that Rule 21 was not applicable because the anomaly arose from counting of ad hoc services which the directly recruited Assistant Professors never rendered, and that granting stepping up would amount to negative discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, reasoning that Rule 21 applies only where the pay anomaly is a direct result of its own operation, not where it stems from a separate benefit (counting of ad hoc services) granted to a different class of employees. The Court also noted that the directly recruited Assistant Professors had not challenged the resolutions granting the benefit to the ad hoc lecturers, and could not seek the same benefit indirectly through stepping up. The appeals were dismissed, and the Division Bench's order was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Stepping Up of Pay - Rule 21 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 - Applicability - The principle of stepping up of pay under Rule 21 applies only where the pay anomaly is a direct result of application of that rule, not where the anomaly arises from counting of past ad hoc services of juniors which seniors never rendered - Held that the Division Bench correctly held Rule 21 inapplicable (Paras 17-18). B) Service Law - Career Advancement Scheme - Promotion - Grant of Senior Scale and Selection Grade under Career Advancement Scheme can be treated as promotion for certain purposes, but does not automatically attract Rule 21 - The anomaly in pay must be directly attributable to the operation of Rule 21 (Paras 14, 17). C) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Negative Discrimination - Directly recruited Assistant Professors cannot claim the benefit of counting of ad hoc services which they never rendered, merely because their juniors received such benefit - There cannot be negative discrimination (Paras 17-18). D) Service Law - Classification - Ad Hoc Lecturers as Separate Class - The State's decision to treat erstwhile ad hoc lecturers as a separate class for counting past services is not discriminatory, and directly recruited Assistant Professors cannot challenge it while simultaneously seeking its benefit (Paras 15, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the principle of stepping up of pay under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 is applicable where the pay anomaly arises from counting of ad hoc services of junior Assistant Professors, and whether the directly recruited Assistant Professors are entitled to have their pay stepped up to match that of their juniors who were earlier ad hoc lecturers.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Division Bench's order. It held that Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 is not applicable in the present case because the pay anomaly did not arise from the operation of that rule but from the counting of ad hoc services of junior Assistant Professors, which the appellants never rendered. The Court also noted that the appellants had not challenged the resolutions granting the benefit to the ad hoc lecturers and could not seek the same benefit indirectly through stepping up.
Law Points
- Stepping up of pay
- Rule 21 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules
- 2002
- Career Advancement Scheme
- Promotion
- Anomaly in pay
- Ad hoc services
- Direct recruitment
- Equal pay for equal work
- Negative discrimination
