Dharmeshwar Mishra vs. The Vice Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University And Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the proportionate pay scale, increments, dearness allowance, and other permissible benefits for the period from July 2002 to March 2009. The reasoning was that the petitioner was seeking an enhancement or revision of his pay based on a statute granted by the UGC and accepted by the State Government. However, the UGC had clarified that such revision would only be applicable to teachers, including part-time teachers, who possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC, which is an LL.M. for law lecturers. The petitioner, possessing only an LL.B. degree, did not meet this prerequisite. The Court found no evidence that the UGC had approved an LL.B. as the minimum qualification for a part-time law lecturer for the purpose of such pay revisions. The Court emphasized that it cannot substitute its views for the policy decisions of the UGC and the State Government, especially when the petitioner's pay was not reduced but rather an enhancement was denied on cogent grounds based on prescribed qualifications. The ratio decidendi is that pay revision benefits are subject to the qualifications prescribed by the relevant statutory/policy-making body (UGC in this case), and courts will not interfere if such benefits are denied on valid grounds of qualification deficiency. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Dharmeshwar Mishra, sought payment of arrears of proportionate pay scale, including increments and dearness allowance, for the period from July 2002 to March 2009, during which he served as a permanent part-time lecturer and Professor-in-Charge at C.M. Law College, Darbhanga, a constituent unit of L.N. Mithila University. The petitioner's representation for these benefits was rejected by the University via a letter dated March 27, 2017. He claimed that other junior part-time teachers were receiving similar benefits, alleging malafide and discriminatory action by the respondents. The amount claimed was Rs. 3,95,473/- with 9% interest. The University and the State contended that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC (LL.M.) for such benefits, having been appointed in 1984 with only an LL.B. degree.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the proportionate pay scale, including increments, dearness allowance, and other permissible benefits for the period from July 2002 to March 2009, as per the statute issued under Letter No. BSU 8/2005-1614/GST dated 29.06.2005, despite not possessing the UGC-prescribed minimum LL.M. qualification for such benefits? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of the UGC guidelines and the applicability of the statute). Petitioner's arguments: - The petitioner argued that the Bar Council Rules permit a part-time lecturer to possess only an LL.B. degree, and therefore, the UGC's requirement of an LL.M. qualification for appointment as a part-time lecturer cannot be enforced. - The petitioner contended that the action of the respondents was malafide and discriminatory, as other junior part-time teachers were receiving the claimed benefits. Respondents' arguments: - The State and the University argued that the petitioner did not possess the UGC-prescribed minimum LL.M. qualification, which is a prerequisite for receiving the benefits under the aforementioned statute. - They stated that the revision of pay is a benefit granted by UGC and accepted by the State Government, and it is only for those who possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the UGC.