E-Paper
Panjab University syndicate’s nod to enhancement of honorarium to guest faculty
The Panjab University syndicate on Monday approved adoption of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2019 guidelines to enhance honorarium for guest faculty
The Panjab University (PU) syndicate on Monday approved adoption of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2019 guidelines to enhance honorarium for guest faculty.
However, the hike is subject to approval from the board of finance (BoF) due to financial implications. As per the UGC letter, the honorarium for the guest faculty will be increased from ₹1,000 to ₹1,500 per lecture and the monthly ceiling from ₹25,000 to ₹50,000.
The move will benefit around 250 guest faculty working at PU. A university official said, “After the BoF’s approval, the agenda will not need a nod from the syndicate again.”
UGC had in 2019 written to all universities and colleges regarding the revised guidelines, consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission. The PU syndicate had in its last meeting in November adopted the revised UGC pay scales for teachers as per 7th Pay Commission.
The letter sent by the secretary of UGC was considered by the PU syndicate in March 2019, but no decision was taken and the item was withdrawn at that time.
Other key points
The syndicate decided that verification will be sought from the Punjab government regarding a panel’s suggestion for implementation of reservation in promotion for non-teaching staff.
The panel had in November recommended that the percentage of reservation in promotion be defined cadre-wise and approved by the competent body before it is finalised. It also recommended that the date of implementation of the reservation roster for promotion also be approved by the competent body.
Regarding relaxation of leave travel concession (LTC) rules for physically-challenged staffers, the syndicate directed the university to seek clarification from the Punjab government.
Heated discussion over contentious unfair means case
The contentious issue of a committee reversing a decision of the Unfair Means Case (UMC) committee which disqualified an LLB student from appearing for examinations for two years after finding her guilty of cheating was also brought up at the meeting. The committee has reduced the punishment decided by the UMC committee after the student’s appeal.
The matter was brought up by additional solicitor general of India Satya Pal Jain, and former Chandigarh mayor Davesh Moudgil, who are syndicate members.
Jain had recently written to PU vice-chancellor (V-C) Raj Kumar, where he stated that reversal of the UMC committee’s decision is in violation of the university’s regulations. While seeking clarification from Kumar, Jain had said that the matter should not have been referred to another committee after the candidate’s appeal.
“We raised the issue in the syndicate because I had written to the vice-chancellor and sent two reminders as well, but didn’t receive a response. To my knowledge, there have been four such cases so far. it is interesting how two committees give two different decisions in the same case,” Jain said.
A syndicate member, Sukhbir Kaur, said that Jain directed objectionable language towards her during discussion regarding the unfair means case. “I just tried to explain the UMC case to him, but he used objectionable language. I didn’t expect such language from a senior member like him,” she said.
Jain and Moudgil also raised allegations of corruption in the university, including the alleged bungling in MTS recruitment. “The allegations of corruption by a junior engineer (JE) were not even probed properly by the university. This is bringing disrepute to PU and we will not tolerate the corruption,” said Moudgil.
Three senators write to chancellor
Meanwhile, three PU senators have also written to Vice-President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, who is the chancellor of the university, requesting for investigation in the unfair means case.
The senators – Jagwant Singh, Varinder Singh and SS Sangha – in their letter to chancellor stated that referring the matter to another committee is against rules of the varsity.
