In a relief to an assistant professor whose service was terminated in March 2007, the Supreme Court has directed an Uttar Pradesh-based university to reinstate him, holding that his termination was illegal. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed an appeal filed by the man who had challenged the February 2008 verdict of the Allahabad High Court which had held that there was neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the university’s order for abolishing the post and terminating his service.
The bench, also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and B V Nagarathna, set aside the high court order and directed the university to reinstate him and also grant him the benefit of continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if any. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with the law. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the high court and allow the appeal, the bench said in its October 29 judgement.
The top court said the petitioner would not be entitled to any disbursement of salary for the period from March 31, 2007 till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle of no work, no pay. It said he is entitled to notional fixation of salary and other benefits in the event other persons, similarly situated to the petitioner, have been extended such benefits by the university. In its verdict, the bench noted the facts according to which the varsity was established in 2001 and was included in the list of universities eligible to receive assistance from the central government under section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and relevant rules with effect from May 20, 2003.
In April 2004, the UGC, under its Tenth Plan, issued grants to the university including the grant in respect of financial support for one lecturer in the department of political science, it noted. The petitioner told the top court that the university had in July 2004 advertised for filling up of vacancy in the department of political science after which he had applied and was selected to the post of assistant professor and an appointment letter was issued in December 2004.
According to the appellant, every month he was forced to pay Rs 5,000 from his salary to the university as a donation to which he objected but nevertheless continued to pay the amount to the university, the bench noted in its verdict. The petitioner said that he had written to the vice-chancellor of the university to grant him PhD incentive as admissible under the UGC grant and in July 2006, the registrar of the varsity replied that since his post was only for the Tenth Plan which was going to expire on March 31, 2007, his services would be automatically terminated on that date.
He said he had received another communication in March 2007 from the registrar of the university that his services were no more required with effect from March 31, 2007, as his post was abolished. The petitioner said, on the one hand, the university had stated that his post had been abolished while on the other hand, the varsity had requested the UGC for the continuation of grant for all the posts under the Tenth Plan even under the Eleventh Plan by showing that he was working in the department of political science as on April 6, 2007.
Contending that service of the petitioner was rightly terminated, the counsel appearing for the university had told the apex that his appointment was under a scheme of the UGC sanctioned under the Tenth five-year plan and it was to come to an end on the expiry of the plan on March 31, 2007. The apex court noted that his appointment was not contractual in nature and he was being paid annual increments also. But, since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs 5,000 from his salary every month, the increments were stopped, and later, his services were also terminated, the bench noted, adding that there was adequate strength of students for the continuation of the department of political science by the university. While directing that the petitioner be reinstated, the bench said there was neither any abolition of the post held by him nor the department was abolished by the university.
Read all the Latest News , Breaking News and IPL 2022 Live Updates here.
Comments
0 comment