/2023 INSC 0690/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4951 of 2023
Asma Shaw …..Appellant
                                Versus
The Islamia College of 
Science & Commerce
Srinagar Kashmir & Ors.              …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTS
1. On   the   basis   of   an   advertisement   published   by
the   6 th
  respondent   –   the   University   of   Kashmir,   the
appellant   applied   for   the   post   of   Lecturer   in   the
Academic   Staff   College   of   the   6 th
  respondent.     The   6 th
respondent appointed the appellant to the said post on
tenure   basis   from   08 th
  September   2001.     The   1 st
respondent­College which is a college fully aided by the
State   Government   published   an   advertisement   inviting
applications   for   various   posts   including   the   post   of
Lecturer   in   English.     The   appellant   applied   as   an   in­
Page  1  of  12
C.A.No.4951/232023 INSC 690

service candidate and her application was forwarded by
the  Academic  Staff   College  of  the  6 th
  respondent to   the
1 st
  respondent.     Accordingly,   the   appellant   was
appointed   as   a   Lecturer   in   English   on   a   regular
temporary   basis   with   the   1 st
  respondent   college   w.e.f.
16 th
  June   2005.     The   appellant   was   initially   appointed
by the 6 th
  respondent in the pay  scale of Rs.8000­275­
13500.     The   1 st
  respondent   appointed   the   appellant   in
the   same   pay   scale.     However,   her   pay   admissible   on
the date of her appointment with the 1 st
 respondent was
not   protected.     Therefore,   the   appellant   made   a
representation   to   the   1 st
  respondent   to   grant   pay
protection.     On   02 nd
  January   2012,   the   College
Executive   Committee   of   the   1 st
  respondent   took   a
decision not to grant pay protection to the appellant on
the ground that the appellant was holding a tenure post
of a limited duration with the Academic Staff College of
the 6 th
 respondent.  The case of the appellant was again
considered   by   the   College   Executive   Committee   of   the
first   respondent   on   28 th
  October   2014   and   the   same
decision   was   taken   which   was   communicated   to   the
appellant by a letter dated 26 th
 November 2014.
2. Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   decision,   the
appellant preferred a writ petition  in  the  High  Court of
Jammu & Kashmir.  By judgment dated 24 th
 September
2018,   learned   Single   Judge   allowed   the   petition   and
Page  2  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

directed   the   1 st
  respondent   to   grant   benefit   of   pay
protection to the appellant and to pay the consequential
arrears.     By   the   impugned   judgment   dated   25 th
February   2022,   a   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
interfered   and   dismissed   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the
appellant.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
submitted   that   the   appointment   of   the   appellant   was
not on a tenure post but it was on a regular post.   The
initial   appointment   of   the   appellant   was   on   a   tenure
basis   and   as   per   the   Guidelines   for   Academic   Staff
Colleges   issued   by   the   University   Grants   Commission,
after   assessment   of   the   performance   of   the   appellant,
the   tenure   of   the   appellant   was   extendable   up   to   the
age   of   62   years.     Learned   counsel   pointed   out   that   as
provided   in   the   advertisement   published   by   the   6 th
respondent,   the   appellant   was   granted   the   benefit   of
Government   Provident   Fund­cum­Pension­cum­
Gratuity.  He submitted that in terms of Article 77­D of
the   Jammu   &   Kashmir   Civil   Service   Regulations   (for
short,   ‘the   Regulations’)   the   appellant   was   entitled   to
the benefit of pay protection as she was not covered by
an   exception  carved  out  in  the   form  of  third  proviso  to
Article   77­D.     He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the
Division Bench has committed an error by holding that
Page  3  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

the   post   to   which   the   appellant   was   appointed   by   the
6 th
 respondent was a temporary or ad­hoc post.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
 respondent
while  supporting  the view taken  by the  Division  Bench
urged that the appointment of the appellant was not on
a   permanent   basis   but   was   for   a   fixed   tenure.
Therefore,   the   third   proviso   to   Article   77­D   was
applicable.   He submitted that in any event, Article 77­
D   was   not   applicable   to   the   appellant   as   she   was   no
longer   in   the   employment   of   the   6 th
  respondent­
University.  He urged that the appointment made by the
1 st
  respondent   of   the   appellant   to   the   post   of   Lecturer
was   a   fresh   appointment   and,   therefore,   there   was   no
question   of   fixing   her   pay   by   protecting   the   pay   which
she   was   lastly   drawing   while   working   with   the   6 th
respondent.     His   submission   is   that   the   view   taken   by
the Division Bench was the correct view.
OUR VIEW
5. We   have   carefully   considered   the   submissions
and   perused   the   pleadings   and   the   documents   on
record.     Though   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
1 st
 respondent tried to submit that the Regulations were
not   applicable   to   the   appellant,   such   a   stand   was   not
taken   either   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   before   the
High   Court   or   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   before   this
Court.   In   fact,   in   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the
Page  4  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

Principal   of   the   1 st
  respondent,   a   specific   stand   has
been   taken   that   the   appellant   is   disentitled   to   any   pay
protection   as   she   does   not   meet   the   requirements   of
Article   77­D   of   the   Regulations.     In   clause   (a)   of
paragraph   6   of   the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the   2 nd
respondent, it is stated thus : 
“6. … … …
(a) The   Petitioner   herein   is   not   entitled
to   any   pay   protection   inasmuch   as
her   case   does   not   meet   the
requirements   of   Article   77­D   of   the
Jammu   and   Kashmir   Civil   Service
Regulations,   1956,   as   is   applicable   to
the   employees   of   the   College,   of
holding   a   post   on   substantive
capacity.    The Petitioner was admittedly
working   on   tenure   basis   in   the
University   of   Kashmir   for   a   limited
period.     A   bare   reading   of   the   order
dated   08.09.2001   appointing   the
Petitioner   as   Lecturer   in   the   University
makes it clear that the said appointment
was   on   tenure   basis.     The   said   post
being   on   tenure  basis  cannot  be  termed
‘a   post   on   substantive   capacity’.     As
such,   her   previous   service   in   the
University   cannot   be   counted   towards
her seniority and other service benefits.”
 (emphasis added)
Thus, the stand of the 1 st
 and 2 nd
 respondents was that
the   staff   of   the   1 st
  respondent   was   governed   by   Article
77­D.     But,   the   case   of   the   appellant   falls   in   the
Page  5  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

exception carved out by the third proviso to Article 77­
D.     Thus,   it   was   never   in   dispute   that   the   said
Regulations   were   applicable   to   the   appellant   while
serving   with   the   Academic   Staff   College   of   the   6 th
respondent and continued to  apply  even after  she took
up employment with the 1 st
 respondent.
6. Article   77­D   deals   with   the   fixation   of   pay   in
cases of direct recruits.   Article 77­D starts with a   non
obstante   clause   which   provides   that   notwithstanding
anything contained in the Regulations, the provisions of
Article   77­D   shall   govern   the   pay   of   a   government
servant   who   is   appointed   to   another   service/cadre   or
department   on   direct   recruitment   basis.     It   provides
that   such   a   person   shall   draw   pay   at   the   minimum   of
the time scale.  However, under the 1 st
 proviso, it is laid
down   that   where   a   government   servant   was
immediately before such appointment holding a post in
substantive   capacity   and   was   drawing   pay   equal   to   or
more   than   the   time   scale   of   the   service,   his   pay   at   the
time   of   subsequent   appointment   to   the   new   post   shall
be regularized.  In short, in such a case, the pay drawn
by   the   government   servant   at   the   time   of   his
appointment to another service remains protected.  The
third   proviso   is   the   exception   to   the   rule   contained   in
the   main   part   of   Article   77­D.     The   1 st
  and   2 nd
respondents are relying upon the said proviso.  It reads
Page  6  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

thus : 
“Provided   also   that   the   benefit   of   this   rule
shall   not   be   available   to   a   person   who   at
the   time   of   his   appointment   to   the   new
service/post   was   holding   a   post   on   adhoc
basis   or   was   working   against   a
leave/suspension   or   any   other   short   term
vacancy.”
Thus, the only question for consideration is whether the
appellant was  holding  a  post  in  Academic  Staff College
on   ad­hoc   basis   or   was   working   against   a
leave/suspension or any other short­term vacancy.  For
the   reasons   which   we   have   set   out   hereafter,   the   said
question   will   have   to   be   answered   in   favour   of   the
appellant.
7. We have perused the advertisement published by
the   6 th
  respondent   for   inviting   applications   to   various
posts (total 42).  The post at serial no.2 is of Lecturer in
the Academic Staff College for which the appellant had
applied.   There are three columns in the portion  of the
said   advertisement   which   describes   the   posts.     The   1 st
column   is   of   Department/Institute;   the   2 nd
  column
contains the description of the posts and the 3 rd
 column
contains   the   number   of   posts.     As   against   some   of   the
posts,   it   is   specifically   mentioned   that   either   the   post
was   temporary   or   was   a   ‘plan   post’.     Against   some   of
the posts, it is mentioned that the same was temporary
but   was   likely   to   become   permanent.     What   is
Page  7  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

important is that against the post held by the appellant,
there   is   no   remark   that   either   it   was   a   temporary   post
or   a  plan  post.    What   is   written  in   the   bracket  against
the said post is “tenure basis”.   Thus, the post was not
ad   hoc   or   temporary   or   plan   post.     The   post   was
permanent   on   which   appointment   was   to   be   made   on
tenure basis.
8. Clause III of the advertisement provides that the
substantive   posts   shall   carry   G.P.   Fund­cum­Pension­
cum­Gratuity or C.P. Fund benefits at the option of the
appointee.     The   appellant   was   granted   the   benefit   of
G.P.   Fund   which   is   another   indication   that   her   post
was substantive. 
9. There   is   a   difference   between   a   tenure   post   and
an   appointment   made   on   a   regular   post   on   a   tenure
basis.  The advertisement mentions that the post is not
a   tenure   post  but   the   appointment  to   that   post  will   be
made   on   a   tenure   basis.     The   reason   for   this   is   the
Guidelines   for   Academic   Staff   Colleges   framed   by   the
University   Grants   Commission.     The   Guidelines
provided   that   the   appointment   to   the   post   of   director,
reader   and   lecturer   will   be   on   a   tenure   basis   for   a
period   of   five   years.     There   is   a   provision   for
continuation   of   appointment   on   these   posts   on
assessment of the incumbent concerned by a committee
having  the same constitution  as  for  their  appointment,
Page  8  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

subject   to   the   condition   that   the   incumbent   on   these
posts   will   retire   at   the   age   of   62   years   or   as   per
prevailing  norms  of  the   university.    Accordingly,   in  the
order of appointment issued by the 6 th
 respondent, it is
specifically mentioned that the appellant was appointed
as   a   Lecturer   in   the   Academic   Staff   College   in   the   pay
scale   of   Rs.8000­275­13500   on   tenure   basis.     In   fact,
the   qualifications   for   the   post   of   reader/lecturer   in
Academic   Staff   Colleges   clearly   lay   down   that   the
appointment to the post of director, reader and lecturer
will be on tenure basis for a period of five years with a
provision   for   continuation   on   these   posts   on
assessment   of   the   incumbent   concerned   subject  to   the
condition   that   incumbent   will   retire   after   completing
the age of 62 years.
10. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant with
the   Academic   Staff   College   of   the   6 th
  respondent   was
not   against   a   short­term   vacancy.     The   appellant   was
not   holding   the   post   of   Lecturer   in   Academic   Staff
College   on   ad­hoc   basis   and   was   not   working   against
leave/suspension   vacancy.     Therefore,   the   exception
carved  out by the  third proviso  to Article 77­D  will  not
apply   as   the   appointment   of   the   appellant   was   on   a
substantive   post   on   a   tenure   basis   with   a   provision   to
continue the same till the age of 62 years.
Page  9  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

11. The   advertisement   published   by   the   1 st
respondent on 11 th
 June 2004 specifically permitted in­
service   candidates   to   apply   by   sending   their
applications   through   the   respective   appointing
authorities.     Accordingly,   by   a   letter   dated   22 nd
  June
2004,   the   Assistant   Registrar   of   the   6 th
  respondent­
University forwarded the application of the appellant to
the   2 nd
  respondent.     It  is   specifically   stated   in   the   said
letter that the appellant was working on a tenure basis.
Accordingly,   by   the   order   dated   16 th
  June   2005,   the
appellant was appointed on the establishment of the 1 st
respondent   on   probation   for   a   period   of   two   years.
Thus,   this   is   a   case   of   a   government   servant   taking
employment in another service or cadre.
12. At this stage, it may be noted that as provided in
the Constitution of the 1 st
 respondent College, the same
is   completely   financed   by   J&K   Government   for   both
plan  and  non­plan   accounts.    In  the  Introductory   Note
to   the   Constitution,   it   is   mentioned   that   the   1 st
respondent was established at the instance of the then
Prime   Minister   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir.     Moreover,   the
Constitution   provides   that   the   Governing   Body   shall
carry   out   the   business   and   affairs   of   the   College   of
which   70%   must   be   members   nominated   by   the   State
Government.     In   fact,   it   is   provided   that   the   Hon’ble
Chief   Minister   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir   will   be   the
Page  10  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

Chairman   of   the   Body.     That   is   how   the   Government
has  all  pervasive control  over the  1 st
  respondent.    That
is the reason why while filing the pleadings, the 1 st
  and
2 nd
  respondents   have   proceeded   on   the   footing   that
Article   77­D   was   applicable   to   those   government
servants   who   were   appointed   to   a   post   in   1 st
respondent­College.
13. The   entire   approach   of   the   Division   Bench   was
erroneous   when   it   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the
appellant   was   not   appointed   on   a   substantive   basis
and,   therefore,   she   does   not   satisfy   the   criteria   laid
down   by   Article   77­D.     The   Division   Bench   has
completely ignored that the only exception carved out to
Article   77­D   was   in   respect   of   a   government   servant
holding   a   post   on   ad­hoc   basis   or   working   against
leave/suspension   or   any   other   short­term   vacancy.
Hence, the case of the appellant was not covered by the
said exception carved out to the third proviso by Article
77­D.
14. Therefore, the impugned decision of the Division
Bench   cannot   be   sustained   and   the   decision   of   the
learned   Single   Judge  which   directs  that  pay   protection
should be given to the appellant, needs to be restored.
15. Accordingly,   by   setting   aside   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 25 th
 February 2022 passed in
LPASW   No.184   of   2018   we   restore   the   judgment  dated
Page  11  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23

24 th
  September   2018   rendered   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   of   the   Jammu   &   Kashmir   and   Ladakh   High
Court   in   Writ   Petition   (SWP   No.1735   of   2015).     We
direct the 1 st
 and 2 nd
 respondents to pass a formal order
giving   the   benefit   of   pay   protection   to   the   appellant.
The order shall be passed within a period of one month
from   today.     Within   a   period   of   three   months   from
today,   arrears   payable   to   the   appellant   on   account   of
fixation of pay as aforesaid shall be paid to her.
16. The   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   with   no   order
as to costs.
…….………………………………..J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
        ..…..………………………………..J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
New Delhi
Dated : August 08, 2023.
Page  12  of  12
C.A.No.4951/23