Baikunth Nath Tiwary v. Ranchi University, Ranchi — 1989 DIGILAW 249 (PAT)

JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. These two writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both these writ applications the petitioners inter alia pray for a direction to the respondents to put the petitioners in the same scale of pay in which the employees doing the similar jobs inter alia in Ranchi College have been put in. 2 The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The facts involved in C.W.J.C. No. 23/85 (R) are as follows :- 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Co-operative College, Jamshedpur on 15.7.1966. Allegedly the petitioner was again appointed as Boy’s Common Room Attendant on 19.11.1969. The petitioner was thereafter given the post of Specimen Collector in the department of Botany on 9.12.1977. On and from 1.4.75 the aforementioned college became constituent unit of the Ranchi University. 4. According to the petitioner, before the said college was declared to be a constituent unit of the Ranchi University, the pay scale of Boy's Common Room Attendant and Specimen Collector was same i.e. Rs. 155-190. However he was being paid in the scale of pay for Rs. 205-284 in terms of the recommendation of 3rd pay Revision Committee. By reasons of the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee the scale of pay of the employees who had been earlier in the pay scale of Rs. 205-284 was enhanced to Rs. 535-765. 5. According to the petitioner, the Specimen Collectors of Ranchi College, however, had been given a separate scale of pay being a scale of pay of Rs. 230-315 by an office order dated 26.8.1980. The said office order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 6. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. In the said counter affidavit, inter-alia, it has been contended that there had been no uniform scale of pay of Grade III and Grade IV employees of the affiliated college and the pay scale of such employees was approved by the State of Bihar Order with effect from 1.3.1973. The scale of pay given to the laboratory bearers was Rs. 165-204 and other IVth grade employees were put in the scale of pay of Rs. 155-190. 7. The scale of pay given to the laboratory bearers was Rs. 165-204 and other IVth grade employees were put in the scale of pay of Rs. 155-190. 7. According to the respondents, the petitioner being a IVth grade employee was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 155-190/-. It has further been averred that the petitioner was put in the pay scale of Rs. 205-284 on a wrong notion and upon detection of the mistake, he was put in pay scale of Rs. 155-190. However, as the petitioner filed a representation, provisionally he was allowed to get the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 205-284/- but the matter has not yet been finalised by the State Government. 8. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it has further been asserted that the Specimen Collector and Section Culturer working in the Ranchi College, were required to have minimum qualification of Matriculation and they had been getting the scale of pay of 3rd grade employees at par with the routine clerk, whereas in the other colleges, the post of the Specimen Collector was that of a IVth grade employee. 8. Paragraph 17 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows :- “That with respect to the statements made in para 9 of the writ petition it is stated that earlier the pay scale of Rs. 220-315 is applicable to the Specimen Collector of Ranchi College only, keeping in view the status basic qualification, work load etc. of the Specimen Collector (3rd grade). It is wrong to say that the same pay scale is also applicable in Women College Ranchi as then is no such post. The petitioner cannot claim the same pay scale as is given in Ranchi College only due to the fact that the nomenclature is the same. The petitioner is admittedly non-Metric and in 4th grade question of discrimination does not arise.” 10. The facts involved in C.W.J.C. No. 115/85(R) are as follows :- "The petitioner in the aforementioned writ application was appointed as Specimen Collector on 11.9.1971 by the Managing Committee of the Jamshedpur Co-operative College. The said letter of appointment is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Similar is the case of the petitioner of the other writ application. The petitioner of this writ application was put in the scale of pay of Rs. The said letter of appointment is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Similar is the case of the petitioner of the other writ application. The petitioner of this writ application was put in the scale of pay of Rs. 205-284 as per recommendation of the 3rd pay Revision Committee, which hag since been revised to Rs. 535-730 by reason of the recommendations made by the 4th pay Revision Committee." 11. According to the petitioners they are similarly situated and doing similar work like the Specimen Collector working in Ranchi College who had been put in the scale of Rs. 220-315 and in terms of the recommendation of the 4th pay Revision Committee they are now in the pay scale of Rs. 580-865. 12. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in this case in view of the principles of equal pay for equal work as embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, all persons similarly situated are entitled to receive the same scale of pay. According to the learned counsel as the job of Specimen Collector working in Ranchi College as also in other colleges which are constituent units of the respondent University are same, no discrimination can be made by the respondents as the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned counsel in this connection has referred the case of State of West Bengal v. Sree-Sree MA Engineering and another, reported in AIR 1987 S.C., 2229, AIR 1988 S.C. 1970 Y.K. Mehta & ors v. Union of India and another and 1988 (1) S.C.C. Page 122 (Daily) Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India. The learned counsel further contended that a higher qualification is not a relevant criteria for granting two different scales of pay to the employees doing the same jobs. 14. Miss Indrani Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand drew my attention to the statements made in the counter affidavit which have been noticed hereinbefore and submitted that there being a dispute with regard to the qualification and initial difference in the posts held by the employees of Ranchi College and other affiliated college, the question should first be allowed by the Vice Chancellor of the University who is also the appointing authority of the petitioners. 15. 15. True it is, that normally a State should not be permitted to pay different scales of pay to the employees who perform similar duties and who have been having same qualification and have the same responsibilities. 16. It is also true that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as embodied in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India should not normally be deviated from as the same may attract the fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. However, in this case, it appears that there exists a dispute as to whether the Specimen Collector of the affiliated colleges before they become constituent units of the University, that Specimen Collectors were treated as 4th grade employees whereas the Specimen Collectors of Ranchi College were in the category of grade III. Further, investigation is required for the purpose of finding out as to whether the minimum qualification for holding the post of Specimen Collector in Ranchi College, was Matriculate and whether the petitioners being the Matriculate were not entitled to hold the same post. It further requires investigation as to whether the responsibilities attached to the posts of Specimen Collector in Ranchi College are different than those working in other constituent units of the Ranchi University. 18. In Federation of All India Custom and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) vs. Union of India, reported in 1988(3) S.C.C. page 91, it has been held that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It was further held that although qualification difference, volume of work may be the same but there may be qualitative difference and difference as regards reliability or responsibilities. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision held as follows: "The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less, it varies Cram nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always he translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact." 19. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact." 19. The aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court has been followed in State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and others, reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. page 19 and in the case of Umesh Chandra Gupta and others vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and other., reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 29. In State of A.P. vs. Sreenivasa Rao, reported in 1989 (2) S.C.C. page 290 it was held by the Supreme Court that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the different scales of pay are not based on intelligible differential having reasonable relation with the object of differentiation. 20. In view of the fact that in the instant case there exists a dispute as mentioned hereinbefore, in my opinion, the matter should be considered at the first instance by the Vice-Chancellor of the University who admittedly is the appointing authority. 21. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent's University while determining the dispute involved in the present case, will take into consideration all aspects of the matter, including the fact as to whether the job of the petitioners is same and similar to that performed by the Specimen Collectors of the Botany Department employees in the Ranchi College. 22. In view of the dispute involved in these application, it is also necessary that the Vice Chancellor Ranchi University should pass a speaking order. 23. In the result, these writ applications are allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University is hereby directed to hold an enquiry and decide as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the same scale of pay which is being given to the Specimen Collectors working in Ranchi College or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.