Model Cadre Recruitment Rules | DPC-Approved Non-Functional Pay Upgradation Entitled Upon 5-Year Service Completion: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the acceptance in principle of Model Cadre Recruitment Rules by a Central University creates a legitimate expectation for employees to receive non-functional pay upgradation, provided the Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended it. The judgment underscores that procedural delays due to administrative incapacity cannot override substantive entitlements.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Rajagopal K.G., a Technical Examiner in the Finance Inspection Wing (Technical), was appointed as Executive Engineer at the Central University of Kerala on 03.02.2014. He completed five years of regular service in that grade on 03.02.2019, making him eligible for non-functional pay upgradation from Level-11 to Level-12 under the Model Cadre Recruitment Rules (Model CRR) issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Despite meeting all eligibility criteria and receiving a favorable recommendation from the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), his claim was denied on the grounds that the DPC minutes were not signed by the then Vice-Chancellor, who was hospitalized and later passed away on 28.10.2023.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer on 03.02.2014
• He completed five years of service on 03.02.2019, qualifying for Level-12 upgradation
• The UGC issued Model CRR for non-teaching posts via Ext.P3 dated 27.09.2022
• The petitioner submitted a representation (Ext.P4) on 14.11.2022 seeking upgradation
• The DPC convened on 07.07.2023 and resolved to grant the petitioner the benefit (Ext.P5)
• The Vice-Chancellor, who was required to sign the minutes, was hospitalized immediately after the meeting and died on 28.10.2023
• The petitioner filed a follow-up representation (Ext.P6) on 07.10.2023
• The UGC issued Ext.P7 dated 15.03.2024 urging the University to consider the claim under Model CRR
• The University responded via Ext.P11 dated 17.04.2024, acknowledging the DPC decision but citing non-signature of minutes as the reason for inaction
• The University had granted promotion to a Section Officer to Assistant Registrar via Ext.P12 dated 11.11.2022, based on the proposed Model CRR, even before its formal approval
• The Executive Council approved the Model CRR in principle via Ext.P13 dated 03.01.2023

Procedural History

• 03.02.2019: Petitioner completed five years as Executive Engineer
• 14.11.2022: First representation submitted to University
• 07.07.2023: DPC meeting held; resolution passed to grant upgradation
• 28.10.2023: Vice-Chancellor passed away
• 07.10.2023: Second representation filed
• 15.03.2024: UGC issued directive to consider claim
• 17.04.2024: University replied via Ext.P11, citing non-signature as barrier
• 14.11.2024: Ext.P1 issued by Registrar rejecting claim
• 20.12.2024: Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 42782 of 2024) filed before Kerala High Court
• 15.06.2026: Final hearing and judgment delivered

The Parties' Positions

Petitioner: Argued that the DPC’s decision on 07.07.2023 was final and binding, and the non-signature of the Vice-Chancellor due to unforeseen medical emergency could not nullify a substantive decision. He cited Ext.P12, where a similarly placed employee received promotion before Model CRR was formally adopted, to demonstrate arbitrariness.

Respondents (University/UGC/State): Contended that the DPC minutes were not formally approved due to lack of Vice-Chancellor’s signature, and since Model CRR was only accepted in principle on 03.01.2023, the petitioner’s claim could not be processed until full implementation.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Upgradation of pay scale from Level-11 to Level-12 with effect from 03.02.2019
• All consequential benefits including pension, increments, and arrears
• A direction to the University to implement the DPC’s decision

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the acceptance in principle of Model Cadre Recruitment Rules by a Central University’s Executive Council, coupled with a favorable DPC recommendation, creates a legally enforceable right to non-functional pay upgradation, even if formal implementation is pending and administrative formalities (like signature) are unfulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh and Union of India v. R.S. Sharma to argue that once a DPC recommends a benefit and the governing framework (Model CRR) is accepted in principle, the employee acquires a legitimate expectation. He emphasized that Ext.P12 demonstrated the University had already granted benefits under the same Model CRR before its formal adoption, rendering the denial arbitrary and violative of Article 14. He contended that the Vice-Chancellor’s death could not be used to nullify a decision already taken by a statutory body.

For the Respondent

The University argued that the DPC minutes were not formally approved, as the Vice-Chancellor’s signature was mandatory under service rules. It asserted that Model CRR had not been fully implemented, and granting benefits prematurely would violate procedural norms. It relied on K. Sankaran v. State of Kerala to argue that administrative decisions require finality through proper documentation.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a comparative analysis of Ext.P12 and Ext.P13. Ext.P12, dated 11.11.2022, granted promotion to a Section Officer to Assistant Registrar based on the proposed Model CRR, even though the Executive Council had not yet approved it. Ext.P13, dated 03.01.2023, formally accepted the Model CRR in principle. The Court observed:

"If in fact, the Model CRR was accepted in principle only on 03.01.2023, I fail to understand how by Ext.P12 dated 11.11.2022, the benefit could be extended to another similarly situated employee."

This inconsistency revealed arbitrariness in application. The Court further noted that the DPC meeting on 07.07.2023 occurred after the Executive Council’s approval, meaning the petitioner’s claim was evaluated under the accepted framework. The Court rejected the argument that non-signature of minutes invalidated the decision:

"The said decision reflected in Ext.P5 cannot be discarded solely for the reason that it was not signed by the Vice-Chancellor."

The Court held that the University’s failure to act on the DPC’s recommendation, while simultaneously granting similar benefits to others, violated the principles of equality, non-arbitrariness, and natural justice. The administrative impediment caused by the Vice-Chancellor’s illness and death could not be permitted to defeat a substantive right already crystallized through a duly convened DPC.

The Verdict

The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the Central University of Kerala to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for upgradation from Level-11 to Level-12 with effect from 03.02.2019, based on the DPC’s decision dated 07.07.2023 and the acceptance in principle of the Model CRR. The University must afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and issue a reasoned decision within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. All consequential benefits, including arrears and increments, shall be computed from the date of eligibility.

What This Means For Similar Cases

DPC Recommendations Are Binding Once Framework Is Approved

• Practitioners must argue that a DPC’s recommendation, made after adoption of a new cadre rule in principle, constitutes a substantive entitlement
• Denial on grounds of administrative delay or signature lapse is legally unsustainable
• The principle of legitimate expectation applies when the governing framework is already accepted

Arbitrariness in Granting Benefits Violates Article 14

• If similar benefits are granted to other employees under the same proposed rules, denial to one employee without objective justification is discriminatory
• Institutions cannot selectively apply rules based on convenience or administrative convenience
• Precedents like Ext.P12 must be treated as binding benchmarks for equal treatment

Procedural Formalities Cannot Override Substantive Rights

• Signature requirements are procedural, not substantive

• Death or illness of an official cannot be used to nullify decisions already taken by statutory committees

• Courts will intervene where procedural lapses are used to defeat legitimate expectations

• Always verify whether the governing policy has been accepted in principle, even if not fully implemented

• File representations immediately after DPC approval and retain all communications

• Cite inconsistent treatment of similarly placed employees to establish arbitrariness