Dr. Anupama Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Judgment Reserved on 17.2.2025 Delivered on 5.3.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20881 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr. Anupama Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent University.

¶2It is admitted case of the petitioners and respondent University that they are working as Lecturers in Department of Education (Bachelor of Education) being appointed in pursuance of an advertisement since 2006 being a self financed course.

¶3In pursuance of an earlier litigation, petitioners have been paid salary in regular pay scale and they have also been granted benefit of recommendation of VIth Pay Commission also and presently they are receiving about Rs.1 lakh per month.

¶4Learner Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that by impugned Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2024, it was decided that their Honorarium be reduced to Rs.30,000/- per month since December, 2024, which is a drastic reduction and therefore, they are aggrieved. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that such action is arbitrary and was taken without assigning any substantial reason. For reference impugned order 30.11.2024 in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter "

दिनांक 24-1072024

क ⷡ᯵अपराቡ७04:00

बज卆眯स卆眯न्टरऑ⹑剉एक 卆眯डदिक भवनें

ाननीୂ क ुलप� जीक 퐳쪳अध्ୂ्ቌ ाक 卆眯 दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ परिरसरेंस्वदि'पⷡ᯵दि(

ୂⷡ᯵ जनान््ቇ* संचालिल बैचलरऑ⹑剉एजूक 卆眯शनदिवभा्ቇ

(

बी०एड०दिवभा्ቇ

)

एवंसं्ቇी

दिवभा्ቇ

( स्वदिवत्पⷡ᯵दि(

)

ें्ቚ ा롫꼧हⷡ᯵न卆眯वालीआୂ एवंव्ୂୂ क 퐳쪳सी्ቌाह卆眯ुएक बैठक

आहु क 퐳쪳्ቇୂ ीजिजसें

दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ क 卆眯क ुलस�चव,

दिव䧩撿अ�:क ारीएवंदिन卆眯शक /

दिवभा्ቇाध्ୂ्ቌ स्क ूलऑ⹑剉टीचरएजूक 卆眯शन(

डॉ०रⓓ┖=्ቇⷡ᯵ र卆眯)

उपⓓ┖स्? रह卆眯।

उ' बैठक

ेंशासना卆眯शदिनाक

ाच*

2020

क ाअवलⷡ᯵क नदिक ୂा्ቇୂ ावदिव䧩撿अ�:क ारी

्ቛ ाराⷡ᯵नⷡ᯵दिवभा्ቇ珞卆眯शिश्ቌ쇶퐻शुल्क स卆眯्ቚ ा롫꼧हⷡ᯵न卆眯वालीआୂ एवंउसक 卆眯साप卆眯्ቌ हⷡ᯵रह卆眯

व्ୂୂ क ादिववर쇶퐻्ቚ स्ु दिक ୂा्ቇୂ ाजिजस卆眯ୂ हथ्ୂ्ቚ क ाशेंआୂादिक

स्वदिव䧩撿पⷡ᯵दि(ୂⷡ᯵ जनान््ቇ* संचालिल बी०एड०दिवभा्ቇ एवंसं्ቇी दिवभा्ቇ क 퐳쪳दिव䧩撿ीୂ

व(* 2024-25

ें्ቚ ा롫꼧क ुल्ቚ ा롫꼧आୂ एवंव्ୂୂ ेंआसानाहै?ाआୂ क 卆眯साप卆眯्ቌ

ेंशिश्ቌक 珞क 卆眯व卆眯नभु्ቇानेंउ' स깘臉ेंक ा⹑剉퐳쪳अ�:क व्ୂୂ हⷡ᯵रहाहै। अ᭙቙उ'

क 卆眯्ቅ  ेंा०क ुलप� जीक 卆眯आ卆眯शानुसारदिनम्नव आ卆眯शदिन्ቇ* दिक एजा卆眯है-1-

दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ ेंस्वदि' पⷡ᯵दि(ୂⷡ᯵ जनान््ቇ* संचालिल बैचलरऑ⹑剉एजूक 卆眯शन (बी०एड०)

दिवभा्ቇ क 퐳쪳व*ानआቕኌ?क ⓓ┖स्?� क 卆眯अनुसार

बी०एड०दिवभा्ቇ ें

क ाୂ*र सभीशिश्ቌक 珞क ⷡ᯵ाहदिसम्बर

2024

स卆眯व卆眯नक 卆眯रूपेंरू०

30,000/-

्ቚ � ाह्ቚ ानदिक ୂाजाए्ቇा। 2-

दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ क 卆眯 सं्ቇी दिवभा्ቇ 卆眯अन््ቇ* संचालिल वान(जिस䧩撿ार) क 卆眯

परास्नाक पा्቏्ቅ  ेंदिव्ቕाቕኌ?ୂ珞क 卆眯 अत्ୂन् अल्पपंजीक र쇶퐻क 卆眯 दृदिO्ቇ

स्वदि'पⷡ᯵दि( पाठୂ्ቅ 珞ह卆眯ुदिन्ቇ* शासना卆眯शदिनांक 13

ाच* 2020

क 卆眯आलⷡ᯵क 卆眯

वा न(जिसार)

ह卆眯ुआब斒眾शिश्ቌक क 퐳쪳आब्ቛादिनांक 01

दिसम्बर2024 स卆眯

सा롫꼧क 퐳쪳जाीह��ୂ दि भदिवष्ୂ 卆眯शै्ቌशि쇶퐻क क ाୂ* ह卆眯ुआव=ୂक हⷡ᯵ⷡ᯵उनक 퐳쪳स卆眯वा

अ�शि? व्ୂाख्ୂााक 卆眯रूपेंस्ቌ स्रस卆眯अनुⷡ᯵नⷡ᯵परान््ቚ ा롫꼧क 퐳쪳जासक ीहै। 3-

दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ 卆眯स्वदि'पⷡ᯵दि(ୂⷡ᯵ जनान््ቇ* संचालिल सं्ቇी दिवभा्ቇ क 퐳쪳आቕኌ?क

ⓓ┖स्?� क 卆眯अनुसारदिवभा्ቇ क 卆眯दिनୂ व卆眯नपरआब斒眾शिश्ቌक 珞वान(जिसार) क 卆眯

शिश्ቌक क ⷡ᯵छⷡ᯵डक रक ⷡ᯵ाहदिसम्बर2024

स卆眯ान卆眯ୂ क 卆眯रूपेंरू0 30,000/-

्ቚ � ाह्ቚ ानदिक ୂ卆眯जाୂें्ቇ 卆眯।

ⷡ᯵न珞दिवभा्ቇ

(

बैचलरऑ⹑剉एजूक 卆眯शन

) व (

सं्ቇीादिवभा्ቇ

)

क 卆眯सभीशिश्ቌक 珞्ቛ ारा

दिलक रदिवभा्ቇ珞क 퐳쪳छा깘臉संख्ୂावआୂ बढान卆眯परक ाୂ* दिक ୂाजाए्ቇा?ा

उ'ानुसारदिन:ा*रिर दिक ୂा्ቇୂ ाव卆眯नदिनांक

अ्ቇस्

2025

क ला्ቇू रह卆眯्ቇा।

ⷡ᯵परान् सी्ቌादिक एजान卆眯परୂ दि आୂ ेंइनीबढ़ⷡ᯵䧩撿रीहⷡ᯵जाीहैदिक उनक ा

व卆眯नपूव*व दिक ୂाजासक 卆眯?ाबीचक 퐳쪳अव�: क 卆眯एरिरୂरक ाभु्ቇानभीदिक ୂाजा

सक 卆眯ⷡ᯵उसपरपुन᭙቙दिवचारदिक ୂाजाए्ቇा।

पूव* दिन्ቇ* क ाୂा*लୂ्ሺ ाप संख्ୂा- सी.एस.ज卆眯.ए.दिव.दिव./पा.स्व. दिव.पⷡ᯵.पा./270/2024

दिनांक 27.11.2024

क ⷡ᯵उ' सीाक संशⷡ᯵�: सझा

वपढाजाए। "

¶5Learned Senior Counsel referred a Government Order dated

13.3.2020 in regard to distribution of funds received from the fee of students of a particular course. For reference, relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter: "6-शिश्ቌक 珞/

शिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿रक *चारिरୂ珞क 卆眯व卆眯नएवंपरिरलⓓ┖Z:ୂ珞क 卆眯सम्बन्: ें-

(1)

स्वदिव䧩撿पⷡ᯵दि( पा्቏्ቅ 珞क 퐳쪳सम्ब斒眾ा,

छा깘臉珞क 퐳쪳संख्ୂा, ्ቚ व卆眯श्ቚ दि्ቅୂ ा,

शिश्ቌक 珞क 퐳쪳भ[ शुल्क दिन:ा*रिर एवंपरी्ቌाआदि स卆眯सम्बⓓ┖न्: क ाୂ* दिव्ቫ दिव्ቕालୂ

क 卆眯स्रस卆眯व्ୂवहृ दिक ୂाजााहै। क ाୂ*र शिश्ቌक 珞एवंशिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿रक *चारिरୂ珞क 卆眯

न्ୂूनव卆眯नक ादिन:ा*र쇶퐻सम्बⓓ┖न्: दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालୂ्ቛ ाराअदिनवाୂ*᭙቙दिक ୂाजाୂ卆眯्ቇा।

दिक सीपा्቏्ቅ  ेंछा깘臉珞क 卆眯शिश्ቌ쇶퐻शुल्क स卆眯्ቚ ा롫꼧हⷡ᯵न卆眯वालीआୂ क ाक  स卆眯क 

्ቚ �श अंशउसपा्቏्ቅ  दिवश卆眯( क 卆眯शिश्ቌक 珞एवंशिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿रक *चारिरୂ珞क 卆眯व卆眯न

आदि परखच* दिक ୂाजाୂ卆眯्ቇा।

शिश्ቌक 珞एवंशिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿रक *चारिरୂ珞क ⷡ᯵卆眯ୂ व卆眯नउस

पा्቏्ቅ  क 卆眯लिलୂ卆眯दिन:ा*रिर शिश्ቌ쇶퐻शुल्क ?ासीट珞क 퐳쪳संख्ୂापरदिनभ*रक र卆眯्ቇा।

इससम्बन्: ें्ቚ �व(* आ�डटसम्प肆瞎क राक रआ�डटआख्ୂाेंइसआशୂ क ा

दिवश卆眯( उ्ቤ卆眯खदिक ୂा्ቇୂ ादिक आୂ दिक आୂ क ा75

्ቚ �श अंशशिश्ቌक 珞/ शिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿र

क *चारिरୂ珞क 卆眯व卆眯नआदि परखच* दिक ୂाजारहाहै।

(2)

शिश्ቌक 珞एवंशिश्ቌ쇶퐻卆眯䧩撿रक *चारिरୂ珞क ⷡ᯵दिୂ卆眯जान卆眯वाल卆眯व卆眯नक ाभु्ቇान

" उनक 卆眯ब��क खाेंेंआनलाइनक राୂाजाୂ卆眯्ቇा।

¶6Learned Senior Counsel further referred paragraphs 38 and 45 of writ petition which are also reproduced hereinafter: "38. That there exists other self finance institutes of the respondent University namely, University Institute of Engineering and Pharmacy, School of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology, School of Pharmaceutical Science, School of Journalism and Mass Communication and School of Health Science.

¶45That there does not exist any justification for computing the funds of self finance courses individually with reference to individual courses/ departments. In fact, it is incumbent upon the respondents to take into account the entire funds generated from all the departments having recognized under self finance scheme."

¶7Per Contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent University referred the impugned order and submitted that since the course is runned under a self financed scheme and petitioners are working on Honorarium basis, therefore the institution cannot grant them salary beyond their finance and in case financial condition improves they will be given arrears also, therefore, in such circumstances no mandamus can be issued. Number of intake of students in concerned course has drastically reduced.

¶8I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

¶9It is not under dispute that petitioners are working for last more than 18 to 19 years and their Honorarium was gradually increased from Rs.Thirteen thousand to Rs.1 lakh per month and they are maintaining a particular standard of living, therefore, by decreasing their Honorarium to Rs.Thirty Thousand per month in one stroke would definitely disturb their financial status as well as their mental peace also.

¶10Even after observing above, Court cannot ignore that this is a self financed course and source of income is only the fees generated from the students and as pointed out that number of students is gradually decreasing, therefore, institution is facing financial constraint, which is the main reason to reduce Honorarium. The argument that fee generated from all courses be consolidated could not be accepted since it would amount to interfere with financial matter of a University being not permissible except in extraordinary circumstances.

¶11In the aforesaid circumstances, Court cannot issue a mandamus that the institution continue to pay Honorarium to the petitioners of Rs.1 lakh since it depends upon the financial position of the institution which has not been much disputed on the basis of records available, therefore, impugned order at this stage cannot be interfered with.

¶12However, since it is an institution of Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur and petitioners are working for last more than 18 to 19 years therefore it is incumbent upon them to maintain amount of Honorarium and for that to take endeavour to strengthen their financial condition and therefore, they are directed to take appropriate steps specifically that this Court has earlier passed order for increase of their Honorarium i.e. to pay in regular pay scale (See Dr. Sachin Kumar Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, Writ-A No.65736 of 2007 decided on 27.3.2016), which remained unchallenged.

¶13At this stage, Court also takes note of the vision of the concerned University which is to enlighten and empower humanity by nurturing future leaders and change agents for universal development and societal transformation. To work towards sustainable excellence in global standards of academia, technology-centric learning, robust research ecosystem, institutional distinctiveness and harmonious social diversity. The Court hopes that to give proper honorarium to petitioners would also be a step to achieve its object and mission.

¶14Court also takes note of Chapter VI (Finance Committee) of First Statute of the University, that it may also look into the matter to increase the strength of students for the concerned course and if necessary, petitioners be shifted to some other course in according to their educational qualification so that they may not face financial crisis.

¶15Court also takes note that in the impugned order, the University has assured that in case finance is generated, their Honorarium will be inreased and arrears will also b e given. The decision being based on a documents of their finance department, which could not be much disputed therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad