Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are members of research faculty (Scientific and Design Staff) of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, aggrieved of the non-implementation of the revised pay scale, as announced by the Government of India in its order dated 19th April, 1990, which has been made applicable only to the teaching staff, preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 27th March, 1992. ( 2 ) NOTICE to show cause was directed to be issued on 8th April, 1992. On 6th November, 1992, it was observed that respondents 1 had to take a decision with regard to the revision of pay scales of the Research/design staff; which had already been recommended by the I. I. T. Council. Respondent No. 2 on or about 15th July, 1992. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 was directed to take a decision on the said question within a period of eight weeks. Decision was not taken with the time allowed An application was made seeking extension of time by another six weeks. On 16th February, 1993, while granting extension to take a decision on or before 9th March, 1993, it was directed that in case final decision is not taken by that date, the petitioners shall be paid their salary by way of an interim arrangement, as per the revised scale of the teachers. On 15th March, 1993, it was stated that respondent No. 1 had taken the decision. Since the petitioners felt aggrieved against the decision, amendment was sought to the writ petition, which was allowed and it is this amended petition, which is now being decided by this order. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of the decision of respondent No. 1, as conveyed in letter Annexure-K. l dated 5th March, 1993 as unconstitutional, illegal and not binding upon the petitioners and the like members of the research faculty (Scientific and Design Staff ). ( 3 ) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of the decision of respondent No. 1, as conveyed in letter Annexure-K. l dated 5th March, 1993 as unconstitutional, illegal and not binding upon the petitioners and the like members of the research faculty (Scientific and Design Staff ). They have also sought appropriate direction commanding respondents to implement the revised pay scales, as announced for the teaching faculty of the Indian Institute of Technology, contained in the letter dated 19th April, 1990, in case the petitioners and other like members of the research faculty, namely, scientific and design staff, in regard to salary, grades and all other benefits hitherto being enjoyed by the members of the teaching faculty w. e. f. 1st January, 1986 or in the alternative to direct the respondents to remove the disparity in the scales of pay of the members of the research faculty (scientific and design staff), including the petitioners vis-a-vis the teaching faculty and to extend the revised pay scales and all other benefits of teaching staff w. e. f. 1 st January, 1986 and further to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners and other like members of scientific and design staff the arrears payable to them, as a consequence of the revision of pay scales w. e. f. 1st January, 1986. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that respondent No. 3 (I. I. T. Delhi) is a body corporate under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 ( Act No. 59 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act. hi the matters enumerated in Section 26 of the Act, respondent No. 3 is governed by the Indian Institutes of Technology, Kharagpur/ Bombay/madras/kanpur Statutes by virtue of Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affair s letter dated 15th October, 1963. The members of the staff of the Institute are classified (i) Academic. which includes inter alia Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Lecturer, Scientific Officer; (ii) Technical and (iii) Administrative Staff. The procedure for appointment, the terms applicable to appointments etc. as provided in the Statute are common to all the employees of the Institute. The Academic faculty is divided into two categories, namely, Teachers and Scientific/design Staff and are grouped as group A and group-B respectively, namely. Teachers Faculty in group-A and Research/design faculty in group-B. Petitioners are members of the Research Faculty (Scientific and Design Staff ). as provided in the Statute are common to all the employees of the Institute. The Academic faculty is divided into two categories, namely, Teachers and Scientific/design Staff and are grouped as group A and group-B respectively, namely. Teachers Faculty in group-A and Research/design faculty in group-B. Petitioners are members of the Research Faculty (Scientific and Design Staff ). The roles and responsibilities expected to be discharged by the two groups are as follows:- ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, employer for both the members of the academic staff (Teaching and Research Faculty) is the same. The recruitment/appointment, rules governing service are under one common codified Act, Statute, Rules and Regulations. Major grants are from the Central Government as apart of common fund, inter alia, for the running the affairs of both the faculties. The petitioners and members of the teaching faculty, by their joint efforts, help the students of the Institute to update latest know-how in technology, who as such, constitute, for the modem industries, a source of developed specialised man power. The two streams and their broad spheres of activity are similar and are also inter changeable and contribute equally to fulfil the main objectives of the Institute, namely, teaching, academic research, technological development, industrial research and development Nature of duties require a mutual sharing of responsibilities between the two faculties. This according to the petitioners is because the Institute s mandate is extremely wide-ranged, going beyond the purely academic teaching and research roles, traditionally ascribed to universities, involving interchange and overlap between the two faculties. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the fact that both the groups (Teachers and Scientific/design Staff) contribute equally in the growth of the Institute, to make it premier one, with a view to provide adequate growth potential in research centres, to attract experts and competent people, the pay scales for teaching faculty and research faculty were accordingly rationalized, in accordance with the resolution passed by respondent No -. 2 on 30th March, 1985, which was approved by the Directors of all I. I. Ts. on 30th November, 1985 and 1st December, 1985. It was also approved by the Board of Governors in their meeting held on 16th April, 1986 and were given effect-to in regard to the pay scales in both the faculties from 30th March, 1985. Teaching and Research Faculty Staff have been drawing the same salary. on 30th November, 1985 and 1st December, 1985. It was also approved by the Board of Governors in their meeting held on 16th April, 1986 and were given effect-to in regard to the pay scales in both the faculties from 30th March, 1985. Teaching and Research Faculty Staff have been drawing the same salary. This parity was being maintained till 1990. ( 7 ) IT is alleged that through letter dated 19th April, 1990 effect was given to the revised pay scales only in the case of teaching staff w. e. f. 1st January, 1986. Before the revision in the pay scales w. e. f. 1st January, 1986, as declared through letter of respondent No. 1 dated 19th April, 1990, the teaching and research faculity were drawing the same salary as follows:- ( 8 ) THAT before the aforementioned decision dated 19th April, 1990 was conveyed, the President of the Federation of the Teachers Association of I. l. Ts. on 16th January, 1990 had submitted representation annexure "h" voicing the apprehension that respondent No. l was trying to discriminate between the two streams. On 1 st February, 1990, on behalf of the same Federation letter annexure "i" to the similar effect was sent to the Ministry of Finance. On 26th and 27th March, 1990 the Federation, at its meeting, through resolution annexure "j" resolved that parity between the teaching faculty and the research faculty should be maintained, as granted earlier by the I. I. T. Council. Despite represenations, as aforementioned, letter dated 19th April, 1990 was issued by respondent No. 1 directing respondent No. 3 to implement the revised pay scales only for the teaching faculty, as already approved by respondent No. 1 in their earlier letter dated 5th March, 1989. Subsequent to this decision, again various representations were made. A Committee was also constituted by I. I. T. Delhi to draw a model for implementation of the pay scales for both the petitioners and teaching staff but no decision was taken and ultimately writ petition was filed. Subsequent to this decision, again various representations were made. A Committee was also constituted by I. I. T. Delhi to draw a model for implementation of the pay scales for both the petitioners and teaching staff but no decision was taken and ultimately writ petition was filed. As noticed above, dedson of respondent No. 1 conveyed through letter dated 5th March, 1993 (Annexure-K1), and the earlier decision contained in letter dated 19th April, 1990 approving the revision of the scales of pay of Teaching Faculty only and not in the case of scientific and design faculty are under challenge in this petition, inter alia on the grounds that the same are arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to principles of equality. It is also ultra vires the provisions of Sections 33 (2) (b) and Section 25 of the Act, in as much as respondent No. 1 has no power to lay down any policy, altering the salary, terms and conditions of service in regard to the members of the Scientific and Design staff, contrary to the parity approved with the teachers by the I. I. T. Council as also as approved by the Board of Governors of I. I. T. Various other grounds had been elaborated in support of the arbitrariness in not adhering to the parity. Petitioners have also tried to demonstrate the arbitrariness and irrationality through a comparative statement of the pre revised/ revised pay scales as follows:- ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No 1 has filed its reply on affidavit of Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Director (Te Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a joint reply on the affidavit of Shri H. S. Parhar, Assistant Registrar (Legal) Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. There is no reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, namely, the I. I. T. Council. Reply of respondents 1,3 and 4 is almost same and similar and need not be dealt with separately. ( 10 ) IT is stated by respondents that the teaching staff is recruited for the purpose of imparting instructions to the students undergoing different courses in the I. I. T. Their primary responsibility is to teach the students. On the other hand, the primary duties and responsibilites of the Scientific and Design staff are to carry on the research and design work. Teaching is not a part of their primary duty. Qualifications for the posts are different. On the other hand, the primary duties and responsibilites of the Scientific and Design staff are to carry on the research and design work. Teaching is not a part of their primary duty. Qualifications for the posts are different. Functions and duties of the two posts are different. They are not comparable to each other. ( 11 ) FOURTH Pay Commission scales are to be implemented w. e. f. 1st January, 1986. It is not denied that till 31st December, 1985,therewas broad parity in the pay scales of teaching staff and that of scientific/design staff. As the cadre structure of teaching staff was not completely at par with that of scientific/design staff, revision in the pay scales was madeeffective through letter dated 19th April, 1990 only in respect of teaching staff, which was accompanied by a revision of qualifications for the posts as well. It is alleged that on such revision of pay scales of teachers, accompanied by revision of the qualifications etc, it is not automatically that the research/design staff to a revision of their pay scales accordingly, In the case of scientific and design staff, scales were revised retrospective w. e. f. 1st January, 1986 through the impugned order (annexure-K 1) dated 5th July, 1993 with the approval of I. I. T. Council and Ministry of Finance. ( 12 ) RESPONDENTS have denied that teaching post and scientific/design post are inter-changeable or that duties and responsibilities of teaching staff and scientific/design staff are same and similar. It is stated by respondents that if a person wants to switch over to the other stream, he is required to compete with others in an open competition and get selected. Moreover, he has to possess the requisite qualifications for the post. Respondents have stated that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not attracted to the present case because the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the posts and qualifications are different. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length. The main stress of Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and of Mr. V. K. Shali, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that the qualification, duties and functions of the teaching staff and scientific and design staff are different. Revision in the pay scale of teaching staff was accompanied by revision in the qualification. The main stress of Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and of Mr. V. K. Shali, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that the qualification, duties and functions of the teaching staff and scientific and design staff are different. Revision in the pay scale of teaching staff was accompanied by revision in the qualification. Merely because there was parity earlier in the pay scales of the teaching staff and comparable scientific/design staff, the same automatically will not be entitled to the scientific staff to a revision in their pay scales, as qualifications for both the posts and nature and duties and functions are different. It was contended that the equation of posts and determination of the pay scales of various posts is primarily the Executive function and has been gone into by Executive only. The Court should refrain from going into these aspects. There has never been a complete parity in the pay scales of Teaching Staff and the Research and Design Staff and whatever parity existed upto 31st December, 1985 was broken/removed with effect from 1 st January, 1986, on account of revision of qualification and pay scales of Teaching Staff as a consequence of which major differences resulted in the Teaching Staff and the Research and Design Staff. Upto 31 st December, 1985, there was some parity in pay scales of teaching staff and that of scientific/design staff but the cadre structure of teaching staff was not completely at par with that of Scientific/design Staff. For example, there was a regular cadre of Principal Scientific Officer/chief Design Engineer with the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000 but there was no equivalent regular cadre in the case of teaching staff. In IIT, Delhi, Associate Professor s appointment was made in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000, a segment at Professors scale. In some IIT s these appointments were not made at all. The revision in the pay scales of the teaching staff was accompanied by a revision in the ladder and qualifications for different posts in the teaching staff. The qualification for different posts for the Design/research staff have been revised and the pay scales have been notified through notification dated 5th March, 1993. ( 14 ) MR. Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the implementation of parity is the sheet anchor of the case. The qualification for different posts for the Design/research staff have been revised and the pay scales have been notified through notification dated 5th March, 1993. ( 14 ) MR. Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the implementation of parity is the sheet anchor of the case. After highlighting the similarity of duties and responsibilities, it was contended that there is no reason why the petitioners be denied similar parity in the matter of pay scale with the teaching staff. It is not a case of equation of posts but is a case of parity between the teaching and scienfic staff. Petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work on the ratio of various decisions of the Supreme Court because of the similarity in the duties and responsibility. ( 15 ) MR. SIBAL referred to various provisions of the Act in order to bring home his point that it is the duty of the Chairman of the Council to ensure implementation of the decision taken by the Council. The Academic faculty includes both the teaching staff as also the members of scientific/design staff. Both are equally important for engineering education being imparted to the students if I. I. T. wherein teaching and research play complimentary role and unless research is undertaken it will be difficult to provide upto date knowledge to the students in the field of technology development. As such, the parity must be maintained, which prior to 1990 was maintained, on the basis of various decisions taken by respondents. The primary responsiblity of teaching staff is to teach and that of scientific and research staff is the technology and industrial research and development for the research staff. It is permissible for the faculty members, as per the past practice to switch over from primary to secondary responsiblities for a specified period, with prior approval. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply on the premise of similarity of work. When two classes of persons do the same work under similar employer with similar responsibilities in similar conditions, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply and it is not open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying the salary. There has been no change in the duties and functions of the persons holding the posts after 1990. There has been no change in the duties and functions of the persons holding the posts after 1990. Therefore, the decision of the respondents is highly discriminatory and violative of rules. ( 16 ) THE Institute of Technology Act, 1961 is a piece of legislation to declare certain institutions of Technology to be Institutions of national importance and to provide for certain matters connected with such institutions. Each Institutes by virtue of Section 4 is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. The Authorities of the Institute are (i) Board of Governors; (ii) a Senate and (iii) such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be the authorities of the Institute. Constitution of Board of Governors is provided in Section 11, which consists of the Chairman, to be nominated by theVisitor; the Director, ex officio; one person to be nominated by the Government of each of the States comprising the zone in which the institute is situated from amongst the persons who in the opinion of that Government, are technologists or industrialists of repute; four persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of education, engineering or science, to be nominated by the Council; and two professors of the Institute; to be nominated by the Senate. Section 13 defines the functions of the Board, which includes taking decisions on questions of policy, relating to the administration and working of the Institute; to appoint persons to academic as well as other posts in the Institute. Section 14 deals with the constitution of Senate the functions of which are enumerated in Section 15. Section 31 says that with effect from such date, as the Central Governement may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, there shall be established a central body to be called the Council. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 says that Council shall consist of various persons. Some of them are to be ex-officio and other to be nominated. Functions to be performed by the Council are stated in Section 33. The Council is enjoined upon the general duty to co-ordinate the activities of all the Institutions. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 says that Council shall consist of various persons. Some of them are to be ex-officio and other to be nominated. Functions to be performed by the Council are stated in Section 33. The Council is enjoined upon the general duty to co-ordinate the activities of all the Institutions. Amongst various functions to be performed, it is the function of the Council to lay down the policy regarding cadres, methods of recruitment and conditions of service employees; to examine the annual budget estimates of each Institute and to recommend to the Central Government on the allocation of funds for that purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 34 says that it shall be the duty of the Chairman of the Council to ensure that the decisions taken by the Council are implemented. It is in the light of these provisions that the arguments of learned counsel for the parties deserve to be appreciated on the point of decision taken by the Council on the parity in the pay structure. ( 17 ) AS per the reply affidavit of the respondents, the functions and duties of the teaching staff and those of the scientific and design staff are different. Respondent No. 1 is relying upon comparative table (Annexure-A), in order to demonstrate the difference in the nature and functions of the teaching staff and scientific and design staff. Recruitment of both categories is through open selection and the duties assigned according to respondents are as follows:- ( 18 ) THERE is a note appended at the foot of the comparative chart to the following effect:- 1. Scientific/design Staff are non-vacation staff and staff members having same scale as Professor (pre-revised Rs. 1500-2500) are not members of the Senate. 2. In its 25th meeting held on 30. 3. 1985, DT Council decided that "the Council, while agreeing in principle, to the proposal of parity between the pay scales of Scientific/technical Staff falling in the categories with those of the corresponding faculty positions resolved that the recruitment qualifications and experience etc. may be rationalised by the ITTs in consultation with the Ministry. "in its 26th meeting held on 19. 6. 1987, the Council approved the qualification and experience criteria as rationalised by the Directors of Scientific and Design posts in DTs. 3. may be rationalised by the ITTs in consultation with the Ministry. "in its 26th meeting held on 19. 6. 1987, the Council approved the qualification and experience criteria as rationalised by the Directors of Scientific and Design posts in DTs. 3. Prior to the above decision of IIT Council, pay-scales of Scientific/design Staff in DTs were different from the pay scales of teachers in some cases. ( 19 ) DUTIES assigned are under ten different heads, both for the teaching staff and scientific and design staff. The time to be devoted by faculty members in performing each function is to be decided by the Institute. Looking at the duties, it is hard to believe that there is any difference. What can be gathered from the Faculty Appraisal system is that both the members of teaching faculty and scientific and design faculty are required to strive towards the common goal, namely, to impart excellence in education and application in technology development and related areas. ( 20 ) I. I. T. REVIEW Committee Report 1986 emphasised the need for a system to objectively assess the faculties of I. I. T. against well laid norms and defining the mechanism and criteria for evaluation. The concept paper on the Organisational Structure for various academic units approved by the Senate and Board of Governors stressed the need for Performance Appraisal system. Reference be made to annexure G-3. A self appraisal form, to be filled up by every faculty member, both teaching and research and design, is same. Standards and expectation for various levels of faculty in teaching cadre in academic departments is indicated therein, which lays emphasis on innovative and dedicated teaching and excellence in research at all levels. It further says that expectation from associate professor, assistant professor, Lecturer in a Centre would correspond to those of equivalent scientific/design/ research faculty in centres. In case the expectation from scientific/design research faculty are to be the same in the case of the corresponding members of the teaching faculty, there cannot be any dispute that the members of teaching and research faculty perform exactly same duties and discharge same responsibility in the centre. The faculty performance appraisal system is a mechanism to assess faculty performance on the annual basis against standards of expectations at each level of faculty hierarchy. It covers all faculty holding teaching, scientific, design/research designations. The faculty performance appraisal system is a mechanism to assess faculty performance on the annual basis against standards of expectations at each level of faculty hierarchy. It covers all faculty holding teaching, scientific, design/research designations. ( 21 ) PRIOR to 1985 pay scales of scientific/design staff in I. I. T. were different from the pay scales of teachers. As such, the Council considered the question of revision of pay scales of the scientific/ technical staff in I. I. T. to bring the same at par with those of the teaching facility. On 30th March, 1985, the matter was considered by I. I. T. Council in its meeting. The note, which formed the basis as- considered by the Council while taking the decision and in recommending that pay scales of scientific and technical cadre be revised and brought at par with academic staff highlight the background in bringing about the parity amongsts the scientific and technical staff vis-a-vs academic staff: - "the DTs apart from being engaged in imparting high quality education have to contribute to the technological development of the country with a meaningful interaction with the industry. For this purose, building of a sophisticated laboratory infrastructure in the various fields involving advanced instrumentation is essential. In order to cater to the needs of the management of laboratories and taking up projects invlving technology development with emphasis on projects of relevance to the industry, certain categories of technical and scientific staff have been created in the DTs. The Scientific Officers and the Design Engineers in the cadre play a very effective role in developing the balanced technological culture. 2. However, it is the experience that since the number of posts in these categories are less as compared to the teaching faculty and also that the pay scales of these categories of staff are not at par with the corresponding academic staff, situations come when a number of scientific officer and Design Engineers tend to apply for posts on academic side carrying higher pay scales. On account of this, the very objective of the creation of these posts is vitiated. In the event of their getting selected on the teaching posts, the work of the Centre of Research where they are employed suffers badly. " ( 22 ) THE decision of the council was then laid before the Directors in their meetings held on 30th November, 1985 and 3rd December, 1985. In the event of their getting selected on the teaching posts, the work of the Centre of Research where they are employed suffers badly. " ( 22 ) THE decision of the council was then laid before the Directors in their meetings held on 30th November, 1985 and 3rd December, 1985. The Directors took a decision that in accordance with the resolution of the IITs. and the Council, who recommended that pay scales of the posts may be revised with the approval of the respective Board of Governors. The matter was thereafter considered by the Board of Governors in 84th Meeting held on 16th April, 1986. The decision of the Directors and the Board of Governors would suggest that the background for the same was the fact that both teaching staff and research and design staff contribute equally in the growth of Institute and with a viewto provide adequate growth potential in research centres and attract experts and competent people. ( 23 ) THE Concept Paper on the Organisational Structure of I. I. T. Delhi also recommended parity between the two streams, namely, teaching and scientific/design staff. This concept paper was discussed and approved by the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 15/16th November, 1990. The purpose of the Organisation of the Institute into Departments, Centres. programmes and of faculty ,. into teaching and scientific design is stated as under: "the organisation of the Institute into Departments, Centre, Programmes; and classification of faculty into Teaching and Scientific/design do not represent a heirarchy or preferred status. Each entity is expected to have a distinct and unique role to play in the functioning of the Institute and should, therefore, have an identity and a place in the sun. the proposed organisational structure is but one step to improve the functioning of the Institute. Concept Paper is not designed to be apreclude to any sudden or arbitrary reorganisation. The organisational model presented here might be viewed as an evolutinary goal towards which the Institute may evolve in time. " ( 24 ) THE concept paper defining the roles and responsibilities of the Teachers and Scientific and Design staff and grouping them in Group-A and Group-B respectively said: "the Institute faculty is presently designated into two broad categories:- I. Teachers: Professor; Assoc. Prof; Asstt. Prof; and lecturer. II. . " ( 24 ) THE concept paper defining the roles and responsibilities of the Teachers and Scientific and Design staff and grouping them in Group-A and Group-B respectively said: "the Institute faculty is presently designated into two broad categories:- I. Teachers: Professor; Assoc. Prof; Asstt. Prof; and lecturer. II. . Scientific/design staff: C. S. O/ C. D. E. (SG); P. S. O. /c. D. E,; S. S. O.-I/ S. D. E. ; and S. S. O. /ii/d. E. Teachers have existed in institutions of higher learning since the beginning of the university system. Their rules and responsibilities have evolved with the evolution of universities from institutions, and emergence of Institutes of Technology all over the world. The creation of Scientific/design staff in institutions of higher learning is relatively recent. While some overlap is unavoidable and in fact desirable, it is important to develop institutional clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of these two categories for effective functioning of the Institute and for guidance of individuals appointed to these positions. The appraisal of the performance of Departments/ Centres and individual faculty members should be related to the expectations connected with the parcieved roles and responsibilities. " ( 25 ) THE Concept Paper further proposed that faculty be henceforth designated into two Groups, namely, (a) Teachers as Group A and (b) Research Scientist/engineers as Group B. Following is the relevant extract from the Concept Paper: "it is envisaged that consistent with the broad goals and programmes of the Institute and the Department/centre to which a faculty member belongs, he/she will have freedom to devote upto 20% time to professional work of his/her choice. For the balance, Group-A/group-B will constitute the primary/secondary responsibilities of Teachers; and Group-B/group-A the primary/secondary responsibilities of Research staff respectively. These responsibilities will be assigned to individual faculty members as per concentions in the respective Departments/centres. Further, it will be possible for a faculty member to switch primary/secondary responsibilities for a specified period with prior approval. It will be the Institute s endeavour to promote group efforts cutting across Departments/centres and involving faculty, U. G. and P. G. students. " (emphasis supplied) ( 26 ) ROLES and responsibilities assigned to each Group are stated as under: ( 27 ) FROM 1985 till April, 1990 parity existed between the two streams, namely, teachers and scientific/design staff. It will be the Institute s endeavour to promote group efforts cutting across Departments/centres and involving faculty, U. G. and P. G. students. " (emphasis supplied) ( 26 ) ROLES and responsibilities assigned to each Group are stated as under: ( 27 ) FROM 1985 till April, 1990 parity existed between the two streams, namely, teachers and scientific/design staff. What prompted respondent No. 1 abruptly in April, 1990 to makie a distinction amongst the two streams is not explained. In the impugned decision the recommendation of the expert body was also not considered which suggested no change in the grade facility and other service aspects, which said:- " Since the two streams of faculty will have to have qualification, experience and evaluation criteria suited to their own spheres of action, two distinct designation streams would be desirable, applied uniformly in the Departments and Centres. However, this concept would be workable only if the inherent wholeness of Institute faculty is recognised and institutionally stated; including by definition the proviso that grades, facilities and other service aspects will be identical and remain so in the future. To facilitate this and also to emphasise the twin roles of teaching and Randd given to the Institute via its objectives, it is suggested that the phrase "teaching and research faculty" be applied whenever reference is made to IITD faculty. The structure of Departments and Centres, definitions of faculty activity and suggested designations to follow in this section are all predicated on the explicit recognition of the above factors. " ( 28 ) THE matter deserves to be examined from another angle. In an announcement for recruitment of the Academic Staff made through advertisement, it was stated that I. I. T. Delhi invites applications from Indian Nationals with outstanding academic records and professional experience for several faculty positions in various specialization. The minimum qualifications and experience requirement is also mentioned in the said advertisement, which states that appointment in the Centre will be made to the post of Research Engineer in scales corresponding to teaching scales. The relevant portion reads: "minimum QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS; Assistant Professor: (Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700) Ph. D. with first class or equivalent (in terms of Grades etc.) at the preceding degree in the appropriate branch, with a very good academic record throughout and at lease three years teaching/research/industrial experience. Associate Professor (Rs. The relevant portion reads: "minimum QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS; Assistant Professor: (Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700) Ph. D. with first class or equivalent (in terms of Grades etc.) at the preceding degree in the appropriate branch, with a very good academic record throughout and at lease three years teaching/research/industrial experience. Associate Professor (Rs. 4500-150-5700-200-6300) Same as above, but with a minimum of 8 years teaching/research/industrial experience of which at least 3 years should be at the level of Assistant Professor. Professor (Rs. 5100-150-5700-200-7300) Same as above, but with a minimum of 10 years teaching/research/industrial experience of which at least 5 years should be at the level of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor. Fresh Ph. Ds may be appointed as Lecturer on contract for 3-5 year period. The Centres in the Institute are engaged in comprehensive Randd programmes in identified areas. Appointments in the Centres will be made to the posts of Research Engineer/scientist in scales corresponding to the teaching scales indicated above. Ph. D. is not an essential requirement for these posts. " ( 29 ) I. I. T. Delhi also proceeded to fill up various posts in the faculty based upon the priority existed in the two streams of teaching and scientific staff. Advertisement annexed-H at page 401 announced the recruitment of the academic staff for the following posts:- ( 30 ) THE minimum qualifications/experience prescribed for appointment for the posts of professors and for the post of Chief Scientific Officer as stated in the advertisement is as under:- " (A) For the posts of Professors: (Engineering and Technology) An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research ten years experience of teaching and/or research Experience of guiding research at doctoral level OR An outstanding Engineer/technolgist with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge. (Science and Humanities) good Master s Degree/doctorate degree in appropriate field with minimum 7 to 10 years distinguished experience in institutions of University standard at post-graduate level Specialise knowledge in one or more specified fields with experience in guiding research Professional scientific work of outstanding merit and doctorate degree would be preferred. (b)For the posts of Chief Scientific Officer and Pricipal Scientific Officer: Good Master s Degree/doctorate Degree in appropriate field with 7 to 10 years distinguished experience in teaching/research including design planning, development and production of instrtuments in Establishments of repute/institution. University standard, specialised knowledge in or more specified fields. (b)For the posts of Chief Scientific Officer and Pricipal Scientific Officer: Good Master s Degree/doctorate Degree in appropriate field with 7 to 10 years distinguished experience in teaching/research including design planning, development and production of instrtuments in Establishments of repute/institution. University standard, specialised knowledge in or more specified fields. Professional/scientific work of outstanding merit will be preferred. OR Ph. D. in Science or Engineering with relevat teaching/research experience or development work in the field of specialisation. " ( 31 ) GOOD Master s Degree/doctorate Degree in appropriate field with 7 to 10 years experience in the Institution or University was the qualification for the post of Professor. Similarly, for the post of Chief Scientific Officer/principal Scientific Officer, good Master s Degree/doctorate Degree in appropriate filed with 7 to 10 years experience in teaching/research is also the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. This is an example for the act of bringing in parity amongst the two streams. There are instances where members of teaching staff have been promoted to the equivalent posts into Research and Design. ( 32 ) VIDE office memorandum dated 2nd March, 1995 atpage405, one Dr. U. C. Mohanty, Lecturer was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-1 in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. Similarly by virtue of an order passed on 24th September, 1980, Dr. C -R. Jagga, Lecturer was appointed as Senior Design Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-50-1600. Reliance has also been placed on some instances where there have been promotion of the teaching staff to equivalent post of Chief Design Engineer. At page 478 of the paper book, there is a communication from Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras to Dr. R. Palaninathan, Assistant Professor conveying the decision of the Board that he has been promoted to a design post equivalent to that of an Associate Professor, namely, post of Chief Design Engineer with a condition that in case of his failure to accept the promotion within stipulated time limit, the offer will be withdrawn. Not only instances of transfer of teaching staff to equivalent post and promotion to higher post in scientific design have been cited. Not only instances of transfer of teaching staff to equivalent post and promotion to higher post in scientific design have been cited. The petitioners have also tried to point out that Members of the Research and Design Staff are also required to perform similar work as that of the members of the teaching staff and it would be clear from the order issued in that behalf by head of the department, Shri P. K. C. Pillai to all Faculty Members: "since the Institute Senior Scientific Offices are exected to take teaching load upto 8 hours/week, they cannot refuse if they are asked to take a course. Further, in distributing the teaching load, an S. S. U. will be treated in the same manner as any other faculty member. " ( 33 ) IN the Personal Promotion Scheme as approved by the Board of Governors, it is notified that for the purpose of counting the number of years of service rendered in a particular category, either in one or in the other, will be considered equivalent experience of faculty member in any of thetwo,namely, teaching and scientific/design staff shall be considered equivalent for promotion to the higher post. It says:- "where the post of Associate Professor/chief Design Engineer/pso exists, they will be eligible for promotion on completion of four years continuous service as Associate Professor/chief Design Engineer/pso or eight years continuous combined service as Assistant Professor/senior Design Engineer/sso I and Associate Professor/chief Design Engineer/pso. (For the purpose of counting the number of years of service rendered in a particular category, different cadres under the same category will be considered equivalent. Also continuous service rendered in the same category at any other ITT just prior to joining ITT Delhi will also be counted towards eligibility. " ( 34 ) THE stand of the respondents on the rules of Personal Promotion Scheme are that rules are no longer applicable. But the fact remains that rules existed and faculty members in either of the two were considered equivalent for promotion to the higher post. It is also petitioner s case that posts of teaching and the scientific staff are inter changeable, which has been denied by the respondents in their reply affidavit. But this stand of the respondents is self contradictory. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 964/91, in Dr. It is also petitioner s case that posts of teaching and the scientific staff are inter changeable, which has been denied by the respondents in their reply affidavit. But this stand of the respondents is self contradictory. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 964/91, in Dr. G. N. Tivari and others v. Union of India and others, it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that teaching cader and scientific cadre is inter changeable. It was also stated in the said counter, copy of which has been placed on the record and is at page 408 as Annexure-G. 2 that in the case of Centre for Energy Studies, the fields of specialisation of the teaching cadre and the scientific cadre is the same and the petitioners therein cannot have any grievance about the promotion of any person for change from scientific cadre to teaching cadre. ( 35 ) THE result of the aforementioned would suggest that members of academic faculty have been appointed to equivalent higher post of scientific and design staff and the scientific design research staff to that of the teaching staff. The educational qualifications are almost identical, they have been discharging similar responsibilities under similar working conditions, posts were also inter-changeable and both of i. e. teaching and scientific and design faculty are required to work towards the common goal to impart expert education and application for technology and development, in as much as, the performance expected from members of teaching faculty is to correspond and be equivalent to members of Research and Design staff and for purposes of promotion number of years of services in either of the two streams is considered equivalent; there is no manner of doubt that teachers and teaching staff as well as the scientific and design research staff, though are two classes but have been discharging the similar work under similar employer with similar working conditions. As such there is no reason why Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work should not be applicable when the parity existed from 1985 to 1990 on the basis of the decision on equivalence by the expert bodies, namely, I. I. T. Council; Board of Directors and Board of Governors. As such there is no reason why Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work should not be applicable when the parity existed from 1985 to 1990 on the basis of the decision on equivalence by the expert bodies, namely, I. I. T. Council; Board of Directors and Board of Governors. There is no reason why there should have been a change abruptly in 1990 when it is not shown that any change occurred in the nature of the duties for teaching staff. ( 36 ) IN Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 879, construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, it was held that principle "equal pay for Equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or an irrational classification, though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. ( 37 ) IN Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others, A. I. R. 1988 S. C 1504, it was held that Doctrine of "equal work equal pay" would apply on the premise of similar work under the same employer, but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. If two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary since the State under a Constitutional obligation is to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. . ( 38 ) RELIANCE has been placed on behalf of the respondents to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. and others v. J. P. Chaurasia and others, A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 19, which says that the question that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends upon several factors. This question is technical in nature and Courts should not normally interfere with the opinion of Expert Bodies. This question is technical in nature and Courts should not normally interfere with the opinion of Expert Bodies. ( 39 ) CONSIDERING the ratio of the decision in J. P. Chaurasia case (supra), the same would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case in denying the relief to the petitioners on the ground that the question of equation of posts is technical in nature and courts should not interfere. The instant is a totally different case in which parity existed amongst the two groups. When parity existed till 1990, it is for the respondents to justify the soundness of the reasons which prevailed in now making a distinction. In J. P. Chaurasia s case (supra) it was held that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay, the same depends upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily, it requires evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same but quality may be different. They cannot be determined by relying upon averments in the affidavit of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts. It was also found in the said case that there was no parity between the two posts of Bench Secretaries and Section Officers, which is not so in the instant case. On the question of parity the expert body supports the petitioners case. ( 40 ) RELIANCE has also been placed by respondents upon another decision of the Supreme Court in Umesh Chandra Gupta and others v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and others, A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 29. The Supreme Court in that case noticed the distinction between technicians grade II and grade III working in a Corporation. It was held that there was qualitative difference in the performance and as such the Court found no ground to interfere. Ratio of the said decision would also not apply to the facts of the instant case. The Supreme Court in that case noticed the distinction between technicians grade II and grade III working in a Corporation. It was held that there was qualitative difference in the performance and as such the Court found no ground to interfere. Ratio of the said decision would also not apply to the facts of the instant case. In Umesh Chandra Gupta s case (supra), reliance on the ratio in the decision in the case of J. P. Chaurasia was placed. It was held that what applies to the Government and Government servants must equally apply to any management and its employees. If the management, for good reasons, have classified the posts into two categories with different pay scales, the Courts genearally must accept the same unless it is demonstrated that it is patently erroneous either in law or on facts. It was on the basis of this proposition of law that the Court found that there was qualitative difference in performance in technicians grade II and technicians grade III and also found that technician grade n were better qualified. Thus it was held that there was no ground to interfere in evaluation made by the management, which was for good and sound reason. ( 41 ) IN Mewa Ram v. All India Institute of Medical Science and others, A. I. R. 1989 S C 1256, different pay scales on the basis of educational qualifications between the persons belonging to the same class, namely. Hearing Therapist and Audiologist of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences was held justified, since the later formed a separate class in itself. It was held that there was qualitative difference between the two. On the basis of mere educational qualifications, the principal of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked or applied. The Court held that even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications, prescribed for the two posts, are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of equal Pay for Equal Work would not apply. Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class is a permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications. The Court also found that Pay Commission considered the case of Hearing Therapist and did not accept their claim for higher scale of pay. Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class is a permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications. The Court also found that Pay Commission considered the case of Hearing Therapist and did not accept their claim for higher scale of pay. The Pay Commission was in a better position to judge the volume of work, qualitative difference and reliability and responsibility required for the two posts. The Pay Commission made recommendation for pay scales on the basis of evaluating relevant material, which was not placed before the Court by the petitioners and the material which was placed was not sufficient to hold that the recommendations of Pay Commission were without any rational basis or that it permitted discimination. ( 42 ) IN Markendeya and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A. I. R. 1989 S. C 1308, the claim for equal for equal work was held to be enforceable only when discrimination is practised amongst equals. Failure of the aggrieved employes to demonstrate discrimination practised by State in prescribing two different scales for two classes of employees was held as justified in not upholding the claim of equal pay for equal work. Graduate Supervisors and non-graduate supervisors in AndhraPradesh Engineering Subordinate Service, were held to be discharging identical or similar duties; not carrying out same functions with same measure of responsibility and not having same academic qualifications. ( 43 ) IN Employees of Tennery and. Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 1367, the Supreme Court considered the principles laid in numerous decisons including the aforementioned. The Court was considering the question of the employees of the unionised cadre falling in various categories. The employees were of the Tannery and Footwear Cororation of India, owned by Government of India, which was set up for the purpose of taking over the two units of the British India Corporation Limited, namely. Cooper Alien and North West Tennery. The company functioned under the administrative control of Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development and the pay scales of employees of the Corporation were fixed and revised as per the orders of the Central Government, issued from time to time with the prior approval of the Bureau of Public Enterprise. Cooper Alien and North West Tennery. The company functioned under the administrative control of Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development and the pay scales of employees of the Corporation were fixed and revised as per the orders of the Central Government, issued from time to time with the prior approval of the Bureau of Public Enterprise. The argument on behalf of the employees was that revision of pay scales under order dated 25th April, 1986 does not do full justice to the employees in as much as, in spite ofthe said revision, the pay scales ofthe employees were much lower than the pay scales enjoyed by employees of the same categories in other undertakings of the Government of India. Argument on behalf of the employees was confined by comparing the revised pay scales with the pay scales of employees falling in the same categories employed with the Cotton Corporation of India, also an undertaking of the Government of India. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, the argument was that the respondent Corporation and Cotton Corporation of India were distinct legal entities, carrying on different trading activities and the petitioners cannot claim parity in pay scales with the employees in the Cotton Corporation of India and that principle for equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked. Employers submissions were negatived holding that it cannot be ignored that both are the instrumentalities ofthe Government of India, which is bound by the directives contained in Part IV ofthe Constitution. As regards the observations made in J. P. Chaurasia s case (supra) on the question as to the equation of duties and responsibilities for applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and that in the matter of equation for the purposes of equal pay for equal work, the same be left to the Executive and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and that if there is such a determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it; The Court held that it was not concerned with the question of posts because the posts falling in the various categories in the respondent Corporation as well as in the Cotton Corporation of India were ofthe same level and employees working on these posts were having the same pay scales in 1970. There was nothing on record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and functions ofthe persons holding these posts in the two corporations, which may justify fixation of different pay scales for these posts in the two corporations. With these observations, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to suitably modify the order dated 25th April, 1986 with regard to revision of pay scales and allowances of the employees in the unionised cadre in the respondent Corporation in a way that the revised pay scales and allowances of the four categories ofthe employees be at par with the pay scales and allowances of similar staff employees ofthe Cotton Corporation of india. ( 44 ) THERE is yet another decision on whichreliancewas placed, namely. Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, A. I. R. 1992 S. C. I 203. The Court in the said decison held that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function ofthe executive and not of the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon the task of expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It was also observed that irrespective of these general principles, it cannot be said that Court has no jurisdiction and aggrieved employees have no remedy, if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. ( 45 ) THE facts, as have been noticed, in the instant case are that before the impugned revision was made effective, the post of professor in the teaching faculity and the post of Chief Scientific Officer/ Chief Design Engineer (SG) were treated as equivalent designations and at par and they were in the same pay scales of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125-2500. There has been revision in pay scales only in the case of teaching staff in 1990 with effect from 1st January, 1986 revising it to Rs. 5,100-7,300. Through the impugned order dated 5th March, 1993 (annexure-Al) the Scientific and Design Staff has not been given the same scale of pay of Rs. 5,100-7,300 being the equivalent category, but have been kept in the lower scale of Rs. 4,500-6,300 with the special remarks that the existing incumbents in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 in the category of Scientific and Design Staff will be entitled to a personal scale of Rs. 5,100-7,300 being the equivalent category, but have been kept in the lower scale of Rs. 4,500-6,300 with the special remarks that the existing incumbents in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 in the category of Scientific and Design Staff will be entitled to a personal scale of Rs. 4500-7300 till they vacate the posts. Thereafter these posts will be in revised pay scale of Rs. 4,500-6,300. There is no justificable reason forthcoming in not treating the Chief Scientific Officers/chief Design Engineers (SG) at par in pay scale of Rs. 5,100-7,300. Similarly, before the impugned revision the Associate Professor of teaching faculty were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000 whereas after revision in 1990, the Associate Professors are placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-6,300. For the corresponding category in the scientific/design staff, who were also fixed in the same cadre, there appears to be no difference and have been given similar pay scale of Rs. 4,500/ 6,300. But inter se the CSO/cde (SG) Principle S. O. /c. D. E. there is no distinction left. Both are in pay scale of Rs. 4,500-6,300, though post of CSO/cde (SG) is a higher post. The post of Assistant Professor and that of Senior Scientific Officer Grade I/senior Design Engineer, before the impugned revision were in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 and on revision they have been put in the pay scale of Rs. ,3,700-5,700, but a separate category has been carved out in the Scientific Design Staff in a lower pay scale of Rs. 3,000-5,000. Prior to the impugned revision there was parity amongst Lecturer and Senior Scientific Officer Grade II/design Engineer and both were in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600. On revision, the Lecturers were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 3,000- 5,000, whereas the corresponding scientific and design staff is put in a lower pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. There is no material placed on the record justifying that why, when the letter was issued on 19th April, 1990, revising the pay scales applicable to teaching staff only, the scientific and design staff was ignored or that while issuing the impugned letter dated 5th March, 1993 the Scientifc and Design Staff was not put in the same level of. pay scale etc. , though it is not in dispute that parity existed till 1990. pay scale etc. , though it is not in dispute that parity existed till 1990. It was for the respondents to have placed on record some material that there has been change in the duties and functions of the persons holding correspond ings posts in teaching faculty or in the scientific/design staff, justifying the cause of difference in pay scales. In the absence of such material, on applying the ratio of the decison of the Employees of Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India case (supra), it has to be held that when all relevant considerations such as qualification/experience, performance of functions and duties and responsibilities remained the same, under the same employer, which also till date duly recognised the parity through respondent No. 2 even in its resolution dated 30th April, 1985, duly approved by respondent No. 4, it has to be held that there is clear discrimination by not giving to the members of the research faculty, namely, scientific and design staff similar revision in pay scales or parity with the teaching faculty. The non-implementation of the revised pay scale as announced by respondent No. 2 in its letter dated 5th May, 1989 reitereated in circular dated 19th April, 1990 in the case of petitioners and other members of research faculty (scientific and design staff) and the revision of the pay scales only in the case of teaching faculty is thus based on no rational classification. The same is discriminatory and arbitrary and is lible to be set aside. ( 46 ) IN the result, the aforementioned writ petition succeeds and a direction is issue to the respondents to suitably modify the two circulars dated 19th April, 1990 and of May, 1993 (annexure- K 1) with regard to revision of pay scales and allowances vis-a-vis the members of the research faculty (namely, scientific and design staff) in such a way that the revised pay scales and allowances are brought at par with the pay scales and allowances made available to the teaching staff with effect from the same date on which such benefit has been given to the teaching staff. The revision should take place within a period of three months from today. The arrears found due and payable, as a result of the revision will be paid to the employees within a period of two months from the date of such revision. Rule accordingly is made absolute. The revision should take place within a period of three months from today. The arrears found due and payable, as a result of the revision will be paid to the employees within a period of two months from the date of such revision. Rule accordingly is made absolute. Parties are left. to bear their respective costs.