Waqf Board Not Bound to Auto-Apply Government PRCs; Telangana HC on Retired Instructor's Pay Revision Plea

The Telangana High Court held that Pay Revision Commissions do not automatically apply to Waqf Board employees and directed the Board's Administrative Committee to decide a retired instructor's pending pay revision claim within four months.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi, sitting singly at the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, disposed of a writ petition filed by Syed Rahmatullah, a retired instructor of the Dargah Hazarat Syed Sadullah Hussaini Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at Nizamabad, who sought salary refixation under the Pay Revision Commissions (PRCs) of 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The court held that government PRCs are not automatically applicable to Waqf Board employees because the Board's salaries are funded from its own generated funds, not from the State exchequer, and any PRC must be separately approved by the Board. While declining to grant the substantive relief, the court directed the Board's Administrative Committee, before which the matter had been pending since a resolution dated 14 June 2017, to take a decision and communicate it to the petitioner within four months of receiving a copy of the order.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Syed Rahmatullah was appointed as an Instructor for the fitting section at the ITI, Nizamabad, on 10 February 1982 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 400 per month. His pay was fixed at Rs. 2,195 as basic pay pursuant to an interim order dated 25 September 1995 passed in W.P. No. 18956 of 1994, which directed that salaries be paid on par with staff of government-run ITIs. That fixation was under PRC 1993.

The ITI at Nizamabad was wound up in 2000 due to non-availability of students. All staff except the petitioner were posted to the Dargah Hazarat Syed Sadullah Hussaini, Nizamabad, under the District Revenue Officer. The petitioner's posting order to the Head Office of the then Andhra Pradesh State Waqf Board was kept in abeyance on account of allegations against him.

The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 September 2017. His gratuity and earned leave encashment were sanctioned vide proceedings dated 2 August 2018, computed under PRC 1993. He filed Writ Petition No. 1878 of 2019 challenging the failure to revise his pay under PRCs of 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015, and seeking a declaration that the Board's insistence on extending PRC 2010 only on condition that he forgo arrears was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Competing Positions

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had themselves agreed to extend the benefit of PRC 2010, subject only to the petitioner giving an undertaking that he would not claim arrears of pay. The petitioner declined to give such an undertaking and instead sought implementation of all four PRCs with consequential benefits.

The Waqf Board's standing counsel relied on the counter affidavit to contend that the petitioner's original appointment was purely temporary and liable to termination. The Board's position was that after PRC 1993 was introduced for ITI employees w.e.f. 1 April 1996, following undertakings given by employees to withdraw pending litigation, subsequent PRCs were never accepted by the Board for this category of employees.

The Board pointed to a resolution of its Administrative Committee dated 19 October 2012 (Resolution No. 83/2012), which had unanimously concluded that the petitioner's plea to come under PRC 1999, 2005 and 2010 could not be considered. Instead, a special subsistence allowance of Rs. 3,000 per month was sanctioned to the petitioner and one other employee. A memo dated 21 April 2016 directed the petitioner to submit a notarised consent letter accepting PRC 2010 from the date of implementation and undertaking not to claim arrears of PRC 1999 and 2005. The petitioner submitted a non-acceptance letter and sought full implementation of all PRCs. The Board then passed Resolution No. 232 dated 14 June 2017, referring the matter back to the Administrative Committee for detailed examination. That examination remained pending when the petitioner retired.

Why the Court Declined Automatic Application of PRCs

Justice Madhavi Devi identified a foundational distinction between government employees and Waqf Board employees: the salaries of Waqf Board employees are paid from funds generated by the Board itself, not from the State government's consolidated fund. Because the Board is an independent authority with its own funding, government-issued PRCs do not bind it automatically. The court held that a PRC must be separately approved by the Board before it can apply to the Board's employees.

The court observed that after PRC 1993, no further PRC had been accepted by the respondents for this category of employees. The petitioner's own representations for PRC 1999, 2005 and 2010 were made only in January 2011, years after those PRCs had come into effect, and the writ petition itself was filed after his retirement in 2017. The court noted that the petitioner had not made any request for implementation of PRCs of 1999, 2005 and 2010 during his service period.

The two decisions cited by the petitioner's counsel, Jharkhand Retired University Teachers Association v. State of Jharkhand (2021 (3) JBCJ 46) and Akshey Goel v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1987 (3) SLR 734), were held to be distinguishable on facts and therefore not applicable.

The Condition of Forgoing Arrears

The petitioner's central grievance was that the Board's offer to extend PRC 2010 was conditional on his surrendering all arrear claims for PRC 1999 and 2005, and on his withdrawing pending litigation. He characterised this condition as illegal and violative of Article 14. The court did not expressly rule on the validity of the condition in isolation. Its reasoning focused instead on the prior question of whether any PRC applied at all without Board approval, and on the fact that the Administrative Committee's examination of the matter was still pending. The court disposed of the petition by directing that pending examination to be completed.

Outcome

The court disposed of Writ Petition No. 1878 of 2019 without granting the substantive relief of salary refixation. It directed the respondents to take a decision on the matter before the Administrative Committee at the earliest and to communicate that decision to the petitioner, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition were closed.