Valmiki J Mehta, J.@mdashThis is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Sh. N.V. Ayyar seeking a writ order or direction to the respondents (respondent No. 1 being the Ministry of Human Resource Development and respondent No. 2 being the employer-School of Planning and Architecture) to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700-7300 w.e.f. 3.1.1989 (being the date of appointment of petitioner as the Registrar with respondent no. 2) and to further re-fix the pay-scale on the higher pay-scale fixed of Rs. 14,300-18,300 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and thereafter accordingly grant all monetary benefits to the petitioner including revision of pension. The petitioner has based his case on the communication/letter dated 2.11.1988 issued by the respondent no. 1 sent to the University Grants Commission. As per this communication dated 2.11.1988, the pay-scale of a Registrar was fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-7300, and to come into effect from 1.1.1986 in terms of para 4 of the letter.
2. The petitioner was granted revised scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2500 in terms of an order dated 20.3.1987 of the respondent no. 2, and which scale of pay is lesser than that scale of pay fixed by the letter of the respondent no. 1 dated 2.11.1988. The petitioner alongwith others had earlier filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) 2720/1993, and this writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16.3.1995 whereby the Union of India-respondent no. 1 was directed to refer for appropriate decision to AICTE within three months on the aspect of grant of UGC scales to non-teaching staff of the respondent No. 2.
3. The respondent no. 1 on 25.7.1994 did communicate a decision to upgrade the scale of pay with respect to the post of Registrar of respondent no. 2 to Rs. 4500-5700, however, as per para 3 of this communication dated 25.7.1994, the respondent no. 2 was directed to make the benefit applicable only from the financial year 1994-1995. This communication was made after passing of the order dated 16.3.1995 in W.P. (C) No. 2720/1993. The respondent No. 1 addressed the communication dated 24.12.1999 to the respondent no. 2 whereby the respondent no. 2 was informed that the revised pension with respect to the petitioner was to be stepped up to 50% of the minimum of the corresponding scale of pay (revised) as on 1.1.1996. The effect of this communication was that the petitioner was denied the benefit of the communication of the respondent no. 1 to the University Grants Commission dated 2.11.1988 whereby the pay-scale of a Registrar was fixed as Rs. 4500-7300/- (which is referred to above). It is this communication dated 24.12.1999 which is effectively in challenge in the present writ petition alongwith the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 of the respondent no. 2 and the consequent letter dated 28.11.2001 to the petitioner.
4. The issue in the present case is thus that whether the respondents are bound to comply with the communication dated 2.11.1988 sent to the University Grants Commission, and which made applicable the revised pay-scale of Registrars also to deemed universities such as the respondent no. 2, or, can the respondent no. 1 rely on a policy decision to deny grant to the petitioner of revised scale of pay required by the communication dated 2.11.1988 and only grant to the petitioner the benefit in terms of the letter dated 24.12.1999 of stepping up the scale of pay to 50% of corresponding scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 and not the upgraded scale on 1.1.1996.
5. Once we read the letter of the respondent no. 1 dated 2.11.1988 to the University Grants Commission, there remains no iota of doubt that the revised pay-scale of the Registrars of all universities, including deemed universities, was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-5700-7300. It is not disputed that the petitioner qualified the requirements of a Registrar as required under this communication dated 2.11.1988. Therefore, the communication dated 2.11.1988 was squarely applicable in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are unjustified in denying the benefit of revised scale of pay in terms of the letter dated 2.11.1988 so for as the petitioner is concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 sought to very vehemently argue that the decision of the respondent no. 1 conveyed to the respondent no. 2 by the letter dated 24.12.1999 was passed on a policy decision, and therefore, such policy decision cannot be ignored by the Court.
7. I have really failed to appreciate the argument urged on behalf of respondent no. 1 of a policy decision to deny the benefit to the petitioner of a scale of pay fixed by the extant communication dated 2.11.1988. The communication dated 2.11.1988 is of no other entity but of the respondent no. 1 itself, and by which communication, all universities which are funded by the respondent no. 1 and the University Grants Commission, made applicable the revised scale of pay of the Registrar to Rs. 4500-5700-7300. The respondent no. 2 is a deemed university and therefore in terms of para-5 of this communication dated 2.11.1988 this communication did apply to the respondent no. 2. A policy decision cannot be a policy decision which violates the extant and applicable orders/circulars/communications which are applicable to all universities and deemed universities. If the respondent no. 1 is allowed to do so then it will amount to a policy of pick and choose which violates the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No reason is given in the communication dated 24.12.1999 sent by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 as to why the communication dated 2.11.1988 will not apply for the benefit of the petitioner. Therefore, the communication dated 24.12.1999 sent by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 is arbitrary in nature and needs to be struck down. If we really were to apply the finality of the communication dated 24.12.1999 to the petitioner, then it amounts that the petitioner is being discriminated without any rhyme or reason although all other similarly situated persons being the Registrars are covered by the communication dated 2.11.1988 of the respondent no. 1 to the University Grants Commission. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed by directing respondents to give petitioner the scale of pay as provided in the letter dated 2.11.1988. The petitioner who retired on 28.2.1991 so for as his terminal benefits, as also pension, are concerned, will be entitled to the benefit of scale of pay which is fixed in terms of the communication dated 2.11.1988 of the respondent no. 1 to the University Grants Commission. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum simple on the arrears payable to him during the pendency of the petition in this Court. The monetary benefits in terms of today�s judgment be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case, dues are not paid within three months from today, then the petitioner will be entitled to interest at 9% per annum simple thereafter.
