Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22889 Reserved on:- 11.02.2025 Delivered on:- 19.02.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25623 of 2008 Petitioner :- Dr. Chandra Mohan Kulshrestha And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Gupta,A.K. Lal,Durga Tiwari,Madan Mohan,Pankaj Srivastava,Prem Sagar Verma,Siya Ram Yadav,Vipin Chandra Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uday Pratap Singh,V.B. Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Half a Truth is often a Great Lie. 3. The petitioners have rightly disclosed that they were initially appointed in U.P. College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Mathura, U.P. as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon/Research Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department Government of U.P. at Lucknow, after their due selection, which was then under control of State Government. 4. The petitioners have also rightly disclosed that in the year 1975, the said college came under the control of Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Kanpur and later on in the year 2001 the said college acquired independent status and also attained the status of a University, Known as U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Pashu Chikitsha Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam Gau Anusandhan Adhiniyam Sansthan, Mathura and they have given options for being absorbed under said University. 5. From this stage onwards, the petitioners have not made a correct statement in the writ petition, so much as in paragraph no. 9, they have wrongly stated that they were absorbed on the post of Associate Professors with effect from 13.05.1991, 15.11.1983 and 08.05.1984 respectively. 6. The correct factual position was being mentioned along with the documents in paragraph no. 8 of the Counter Affidavit that the petitioners have filed their option for absorption in the University on the post of Livestock Development Officer (LDO)/Research Assistant (RA) working at that time in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 850-1720/- and in CSA University the designation was given on the post of Associate Professor in the U.G.C. Pay-Scale of Rs. 1200-1900 after merger without annual increment. 7. It is the further case of the petitioners as well as of the respondents that vide GO, dated 01.07.1997 the qualification of Ph.D was made mandatory in respect of Associate Professor and admittedly the petitioners were not qualified since they did not possess Ph.D. 8. In the Counter affidavit it has also been disclosed that the petitioners were promoted vide GO dated 10.09.1994/84 but since they were non Ph.D holders, therefore, the University did not accord the annual increment, which has not been disputed by the petitioners. 9. The petitioners have claimed that similarly situated persons were granted Pay-Scale of 1500-2500, however, same has also been very specifically denied in the Counter Affidavit in paragraph no. 14 that the said person i.e. Dr. G.R. Singh, was Class-I Officer and was absorbed in the University in the Pay-Scale of 1500-2500, whereas petitioners were Class-II Officers and were thus absorbed in the University initially in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 850-1720 and later on in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 1200-1900 as Livestock Development Officers/Assistant Professor. 2 of 4 10. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently relied upon a circular dated 06.03.1976 specifically its Clause 4 wherein it was provided that after absorption the earlier service conditions would not be disturbed as applicable to the petitioners, under the State Government prior to it. However, it will not be helpful to them since, by open eyes, they have given options to be absorbed at a particular stage and therefore, they are not permitted to take a U-turn. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred that a Communication, dated 05.06.2007, of the Special Secretary, U.P., addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University that claim of the petitioners, so far as increments was concerned, be considered and appropriate decision be taken. 12. In that regard learned Counsel for State has referred paragraph no. 16 of the Counter Affidavit that the Executive Council has already considered the said issue way back in a meeting, dated 24.04.2004 wherein an issue was considered regarding grant of annual increment to Associate Professors without having Ph.D qualifications. However, it was disapproved as well as that it was not challenged at the behest of the petitioners. 13. As referred above, it is an accepted position that petitioners do not have qualification of Ph.D, therefore, according to the GO dated 01.07.1997 they were not entitled for annual increment. The contents of the GO are also not under challenge. 14. The Executive Council has already considered the issue which was not approved. It is a financial issue, therefore, except specific provisions, this Court cannot pass a mandamus that the petitioners, despite being not qualified for increments, must be granted increments. 15. The argument of parity has already been dealt in the earlier paragraphs and since it has no force therefore it is also rejected. The Government Orders and the resolution of the Executive Council are not 3 of 4 under challenge. Otherwise also, without any statutory back-up claim of the petitioners, for grant of increment, cannot be allowed. 16. Accordingly, the relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted therefore, the writ petition having no force is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 19.02.2025 Saurabh [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.] 4 of 4 Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad