IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11245 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Bhawani Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HP University …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. L.S.Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(a) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-15) being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Constitution of India. (b) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent University to release the due salary to the petitioner of the post of Associate Professor (Hindi) in the Department of Hindi in terms of office order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-7) instead of the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) w.e.f. the due date i.e. 09.09.2022 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that on 23.09.2016, petitioner herein came to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the Department of Hindi against duly advertised seat as per the Rules, Act, Ordinance and UGC Regulations. Pursuant to his being appointed against the post in question, petitioner joined on 23.09.2016 itself. On 21.05.2022, respondent/University granted revised pay and grade pay in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100+8000/- AGP w.e.f 09.09.2019 to the petitioner as per UGC Regulations. The petitioner had completed three years requisite service in the pay band-3 of Rs.15600-39100+8000/- on 08.09.2022 and thereafter, in terms of notification dated 21.05.2022 issued by the respondent- University, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the pay band-4 of Rs. 37400-6700+9000 AGP under Career Advancement Scheme (in short “CAS”) w.e.f. 09.09.2022 as prescribed under Clause 6.4 (C) of UGC Regulations. 3. Since petitioner was found eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor (Hindi) under CAS, respondent-University conducted his interview on 18.04.2023 as per UGC guidelines. On 04.07.2023, respondent-University, pursuant to authorization given by the Executive Council under Resolution No. 2 of its meeting held on 21.11.2020 and on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, proceeded to promote the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Hindi to the post of 2 Associate Professor in the Academic Level-13A (Rs.131400-217100/-), w.e.f from 09.09.2022 under CAS subject to certain conditions. 4. Though pursuant to aforesaid promotion granted to the petitioner, vide office order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-7), petitioner has been successfully rendering services in the respondent-University as Associate Professor, but his precise grouse is that till date he has not been given pay scale of Associate Professor. Though at first instance, he repeatedly requested the respondents to release him pay scale of Associate Professor in terms of UGC guidelines, but since no heed was paid to his representations, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 5. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-University has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, are not disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that salary qua the promotional post under CAS shall be released on the issuance of separate order by the State Government as has been provided by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. EDN-A-Kha(15) dated 01.08.2022 adopted by the University vide Notification No. 9/1/2022-HPU (Genl.) dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure R-B). It has been averred in the reply that though repeatedly respondent-University 3 requested the Government of Himachal Pradesh to pass separate order, thereby authorizing respondent-University to release pay scale of Associate Professor in favour of the petitioner in case promotion granted under CAS, but till date, no order has been passed. 6. Having taken note of aforesaid plea set up by the respondent-University, this Court passed order dated 08.04.2025, which reads as under:- “Pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025, Ms. Archana Dutta, learned counsel representing the respondent-University has placed on record communication dated 29.03.2025, enclosing therewith various communications sent by Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University, for passing appropriate orders with regard to appointment of the petitioner under CAS. Communication dated 24.09.2024 addressed to Registrar, H.P. University, Shimla by Secretary (Education) by the Government of Himachal Pradesh clearly reveals that order regarding grant of revision of pay structure for existing regular teaching and equivalent cadre in Himachal Pradesh University on account of promotion under CAS and incentive increments on attaining the higher qualification will be allowed on issuance of separate orders by the State Government. Though, respondent-University, after promoting the petitioner under CAS, has been repeatedly writing to the State Government to pass separate orders, but the same are not being issued, as a result thereof, petitioner, who admittedly at present is working against the higher post, is being denied salary of higher post. In aforesaid background, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to have instructions from the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh that why separate orders with regard to promotion of the petitioner under CAS are not being passed, despite there being repeated communications made by Registrar of the H.P. University. 4 Copy of communication dated 29.03.2025 along with other letters sent by respondent-University to the State of Himachal Pradesh has been made available to Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for having instructions in terms of instant order. List on 07.05.2025.” 7. Pursuant to aforesaid order, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record communication dated 17.05.2025 issued under the signatures of Under Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof reveals that matter was taken up with the Finance (Expenditure) Department, but same proceeded to advise that the proposal of the Department cannot be acceded to because in State Pay Scales also the Assured Career Progression Scheme has ceased to be in operation after inception of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 03.01.2022. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Professor (Hindi), in the Department of Hindi against duly advertised seat on the recommendation of Selection Committee. It is also not in dispute that at the time of petitioner’s appointment against the post of Assistant Professor, he was possessing requisite qualification as prescribed by the UGC. It is also not in dispute that respondent-University itself 5 issued notification dated 21.05.2022, thereby notifying that petitioner has become eligible for promotion as Associate Professor in the pay band-4 of Rs. 37400-6700+9000 AGP under CAS w.e.f 09.09.2022 as prescribed under Section 6.4 (C) of UGC Regulations and thereafter, respondent-University itself conducted interview of the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor (Hindi) under CAS and promoted him to the post of Associate Professor in the Academic Level-13-A (Rs.131400-217100/-), as per UGC Regulations w.e.f from 09.09.2022 under CAS that too on the recommendation of Selection Committee and with the prior approval of the Executive Council. 9. Now the question, which remains to be decided is that "whether after his being promoted to the post of Associate Professor, petitioner herein can be denied pay scale of promotional post on the pretext that respondent-State has not issued any separate order, thereby authorizing respondent-University to release the salary of Associate Professor to the petitioner on account of his being promoted to the post of Associate Professor under CAS?” 10. Though an attempt has been made by State to justify its action of not issuing notification on the ground that Assured Career Progression Scheme has ceased to be in operation after inception of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022 w.e.f. 03.01.2022, but since it is not in dispute that UGC Regulations of 6 2010 have been adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter, Regulations of 2018 have been adopted by the respondent- University, wherein specific provision has been made for promotion under CAS, there was otherwise no requirement of separate order, if any, from the State of Himachal Pradesh that too for releasing the salary qua the promotional post. Though there is no dispute from the side of respondent-University that Regulations of UGC have been approved by the Executive Committee of Himachal Pradesh University for implementation, but it has been claimed by learned counsel for the respondent-University that same have not been approved by the Finance Committee of University till date. It is also stand of the respondent-University that matter has been referred to the State Government and till the time decision is not received, respondent- University is not in a position in take any further action. However, as has been taken note hereinabove, proposal otherwise submitted by the respondent-University for release of salary in favour of the petitioner under CAS has been rejected as is evident from the communication dated 17.05.2025 placed on record by the respondent-State. 11. It is no more res integra that the UGC Regulations are applicable to the State Government. Question with regard to applicability of 2010 Regulations to the State Government without their specific adoption is also not in dispute. In this regard, reliance is 7 placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gambhirdan K.Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179, wherein it has been held as under: “20.1. While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise of powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the SPU Act, 1955, are required to be referred to. 20.2. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of the Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of “Consequences of failure of universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framed under the UGC Act are required to be laid before each House of Parliament and when both the Houses agree then rules and regulations can be given effect with such modification as may be made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be subordinate legislation. 20.3. For the appointment and career advancement of teachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by Regulation dated 4- 4- 2000, enacted the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000. However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were prescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”. 21. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1- 32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and 8 colleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. 22. By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/ Professors in universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of Pro Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1- 32/2006-U.II/U.I(i), dated 31- 12-2008 issued by the Government of India and in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came into force with immediate effect. 50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject “education” is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.” 9 12. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sunder Dass, 2022 SCC Online SC 1382, which reads as under: “61. In Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat17, the Sardar Patel University Act 1955, expressly vested the power of appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the State government (instead of the Chancellor). Despite the appointment being in terms of the statutory provisions of the Sardar Patel University Act 1955, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto setting aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by relying upon the UGC Regulations 2018. This Court, holding that the UGC Regulations were binding, held that: 49. Therefore, when the appointment of Respondent 4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of Respondent 4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University. 50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject “education” is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto. (emphasis supplied) 10 62. In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi18, even if the provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. The Regulations become part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail. 11. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S Vs. Dr. Rajshree M.S reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1472, wherein it has been held as under: “18. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)? 23. The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das (supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed and held in paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan K Gadhvi (supra), even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would have to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. It is further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of the statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail. 24. In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the 11 provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted. 13. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that UGC regulations are mandatory and as such, provision contained therein cannot be ignored or sidetracked on the pretext that till the time separate orders are not passed by the State Government, same cannot be enforced. Since UGC Regulations provide for promotion under CAS and petitioner herein was duly promoted to the post of Associate Professor on the recommendation of Section Committee, coupled with the fact that he has been working against the promotional post for more than two years, there appears to be no justification to deny him pay of promotional post that too on the ground that separate order in that regard has not been passed by the State Government. Since entire action, pursuant to request, if any, made by the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Associate Professor, was initiated by the respondent-University under UGC Regulations and respondent-University itself, following the procedure prescribed by the UGC guidelines, proceeded to promote the petitioner 12 to the post of Associate Professor, it does not lie in the mouth of respondent-University to claim that till the time approval in that regard is not granted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, salary of the promotional post cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. 14. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 50 of 2019, titled as Dr. Manpreet Arora and Ors. Vs. Central University of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. taking note of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, as detailed hereinabove, has also taken a similar view, which was further affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, action of respondent-University in not releasing the salary to the petitioner qua promotional post deserves to be held bad in law, especially when there is no dispute qua the fact that UGC regulations are fully applicable to the respondent-University. 16. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondent-University is directed to release the salary of the petitioner qua the promotional post from due date as assigned in promotional order (Annexure P-7). Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done by the respondent-University expeditiously, preferably within a 13 period six weeks, failing which, petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% on the arrears from the date amount fell due till the date of actual payment. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. June 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 14