Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications

Tribunal erred in granting retrospective benefits contrary to UGC Scheme regulations - Kerala High Court setting aside a Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order that had granted retrospective UGC pay scale benefits to two librarians despite their delayed acquisition of UGC-mandated qualifications. The Court emphasized that mandatory qualifications under the UGC Regulations, 2010, cannot be relaxed arbitrarily to provide benefits retrospectively.
The bench, comprising Hon'ble Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Hon'ble Justice P. Krishna Kumar, ruled that the Tribunal’s order was inconsistent with the relevant government orders and UGC regulations. It also directed the State Government to address pay disparities between UGC Librarians and State Librarians where pay protection provisions applied.
The Kerala Administrative Tribunal had directed the government to place the respondents, Sunny Joseph and Humayoon Kabeer P., in senior and selection grades under the UGC pay scale, retrospectively considering their 18 years of service as Librarian Grade I. The respondents had cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET)—a UGC-mandated qualification—only in 2012 and 2013, more than a decade after their initial appointment. Despite this delay, the Tribunal relied on precedents where similar benefits were granted to other librarians.
The respondents could not claim senior scale placement or retrospective benefits for periods when they did not possess the mandatory UGC qualification. As per Annexure A8 Government Order, further placements under the UGC Scheme are contingent upon fulfilling UGC qualification requirements.
The Tribunal’s reliance on earlier cases (Annexures A11 and A18) was misplaced, as those relaxations were granted only during the initial implementation of the UGC Scheme as a special case. The High Court clarified that such exemptions cannot create a generalized right for other ineligible individuals.
The Court reaffirmed that judicial and tribunal interventions in policy matters should only occur when there is a violation of principles of equality or arbitrariness. In this case, the UGC Scheme's conditions for qualification were rational and did not warrant interference.
"Claims based on benefits granted to ineligible persons cannot be sustained": High Court
The High Court cited the precedent set in HAV (OFC) RWMWI Borgoyary & Others v. Union of India & Others (2019 KHC 7217) to underscore that benefits granted erroneously to ineligible persons cannot be used as a basis for similar claims. It further relied on Radhakrishnan Pillai D. (Dr.) v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Others (2016 (2) KHC 119), which held that qualification requirements for promotions must be adhered to unless explicitly relaxed in policy.
The respondents argued that junior non-UGC Librarians were receiving higher pay due to their placement in senior grades, creating an anomaly. While quashing the Tribunal's order, the High Court directed the State Government to address any pay disparity between UGC Librarians and State Librarians if pay protection provisions (as per Annexure A10) applied.
The Court clarified that any pay anomalies must be rectified promptly to ensure fair treatment under the Protection of Pay Rules.
On Qualification Delay: "As per Annexure A8, the respondents cannot claim the said benefit for a period during which they did not acquire the essential qualification. Qualification is a prerequisite for promotion under the UGC Scheme."
On Policy Discretion: "The Tribunal failed to consider the rationale behind requiring UGC qualifications at the time of placement in the UGC Scheme. Policy discretion must not be interfered with unless shown to violate equality or be arbitrary."
On Past Relaxations: "Relaxations granted at the early stage of UGC Scheme implementation were specific to that period and cannot create rights for others."
The High Court quashed the KAT order granting retrospective UGC benefits to the respondents.
It directed the government to address pay disparities for UGC Librarians promptly, ensuring compliance with pay protection rules.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to qualification requirements prescribed under the UGC Scheme and limits the scope of judicial interference in policy matters. It also highlights the Court's commitment to addressing pay disparities within the framework of existing rules.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2025