Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 79 (GAU)

Bipul Kanti Saha v. State of Tripura

2000-02-25

P.C.PHUKAN

body2000
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners, Lecturers in the Basic Training Colleges of Tripura, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the State-respondents to grant University Grant Commission scale of pay (UGC pay scale for short) to them. 2.1 have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate General, Tripura appearing for the State respondents. I have also considered the records of the case. 3. The number of petitioners in this civil rule is seven. Their case is briefly stated hereunder. 4. On the recommendation of the Tripura Public Service Commission, the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers (Class II Gazetted post) in the Basic Training Colleges under Education Department of the Govt of Tripura on the dates shown in the respective notifications, of which the earliest one was issued on 29.6.77 and the last on 16.9.92 (Annexure 1 series). The petitioner No. 4 was subsequently appointed as Senior Lecturer vide notification dated 18.11.95 (Annexure 2). 5. In 1973, a Committee of University Grants Commission on 'Governance of Universities and Colleges' recommended higher pay scales to University and college teachers. The Central Govt accepted the recommendations. The respondent No.l Govt of Tripura also decided to accept the UGC pay scale to teachers of all colleges affiliated to University. But the teachers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura have been excluded from UGC Pay scales on the ground that Basic Training Colleges are not affiliated to any University. 6. Being aggrieved, twenty four teachers (other than the present writ petitioners) of the Basic Training Colleges of Tripura approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 84 of 1979, Nos 88 to 109 of 1979 and No.2 of 1980 praying for issuance of a writ directing the State-respondents to grant them UGC pay scales. This Court by a common judgment and order dated 25.2.87 (Annexure 3) allowed the said batch of civil rules. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the -said judgment it has been held that: “6. This Court by a common judgment and order dated 25.2.87 (Annexure 3) allowed the said batch of civil rules. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the -said judgment it has been held that: “6. Though, it is thus obvious that the Central Govt on its own has made available the UGC scale of pay to certain Govt institutions which-were not Universities or colleges, but then reading the affidavit of the Union of India as a whole along with the Annexures and appendices we are left with no doubt that the Central assistance was promised only to the colleges which were affiliated to Universities. Of course, it was left open to the State Govt to sanction scales of pay, if they so desired to teachers in comparable institutions, although no general assistance was to be available to them for this purpose, as stated in para 5 of the aforesaid affidavit. 7. Taking on overall view of the stand taken by the Union of India as reflected in their affidavit, we are satisfied that the Lecturers of the two Basic Training Colleges could not have claimed the UGC scale of pay on the basic of the policy decision of the Central Govt because it is an admitted position that these colleges are not affiliated to any University, whereas the Central assistance was assured for affiliated colleges.” 7. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, this Court, however, observed that: “non-affiliation to a University cannot be a cogent and relevant ground to deny equal pay for equal work.” 8. Then in paragraph 20 of the said judgment, it has been finally held that: “20. We are of the view that the Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges are entitled to pay equal to that what has been made available to the Lecturers of Degree Colleges, as duties, responsibilities and nature of work of both are not different in any material way.” 9. We are of the view that the Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges are entitled to pay equal to that what has been made available to the Lecturers of Degree Colleges, as duties, responsibilities and nature of work of both are not different in any material way.” 9. On appeal by the State of Tripura, the Apex Court found “it difficult to agree with the judgment of the High Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work in the facts of this case," but in view of the fact that put of 24 respondents, 19 have already retired from service, and having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the total financial liability arising as a result of the impugned judgment in respect of 24 respondents would come to Rs. 12.31 lakhs only and the future liability would be about Rs. 25,000 per annum, did not interfere with the directions of this Court and ordered that the persons who are still in employment would continue to be paid, as per UGC pay scale in accordance with the directions of the High Court during the period they are in service.” Vide order dated 20.2.1996 disposing of Civil Appeals Nos.l049-1072 of l988 (Annexure 4). 10. The State-respondents then issued a notification dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure 5). The relevant portion thereof reads as under: NOTIFICATION Dated, Agartala, the 27th May, 1996 Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench dated 25.2.1987 followed by judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.2.1996 in Civil Appeals Nos 1049-1072 of 1£88, in favour of 24 (twenty four) petitioners as per list annexed hereto with effect from 1.4.1979 except 1 (one) Shri Paresh Chandra Bhadury under SI No. 16 in whose case the benefit of UGC scales of pay will be applicable with effect from 22.12.1977, as personal to them........” 11. The above notification shows that the State-respondents extended the benefit of the Court judgments only to the petitioners of the above mentioned batch of Civil Rule Nos 84 of 1979,88 to 109 of 1979 and 2 of 1980 to the exclusion of all other similarly situated teachers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura including the present writ petitioners. The above notification shows that the State-respondents extended the benefit of the Court judgments only to the petitioners of the above mentioned batch of Civil Rule Nos 84 of 1979,88 to 109 of 1979 and 2 of 1980 to the exclusion of all other similarly situated teachers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura including the present writ petitioners. The present writ petitioner Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 therefore, submitted similarly worded representations (copy of one is at Annexure 6) to the Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Education Department (respondent No. 2 in this civil rule) to fully implement the Court's judgments by extending such benefit to all the Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura. Unable to get any response they have come up before this court in the instant civil rule. 12. The Principal Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Education Department filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that the present writ petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Court's judgment as they were not party before the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the High Court judgment is not a judgment in rem. It is further stated in paragraph 3 of affidavit-in-opposition that the claim of the present writ petitioners and similarly situated other persons for UGC pay scale is under active consideration of the Govt and if rule permits and other facts and circumstances permit then their case may be considered favourably. 13. Also a Joint Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Education Department filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the State-respondents. It is stated therein that the benefit of UGC pay scale is strictly confined to the teachers of degree Colleges recognised by the University, the Basic Training Colleges in the State do not fulfil any of the norms prescribed by the UGC for becoming eligible for the UGC pay scale, that the Degree Colleges impart education in course of study approved by the University and are awarding Degrees whereas the course of study followed in Basic Training Colleges has approval of the State Govt only and such colleges are issuing certificates only, and that the qualifications prescribed are also different for Degree College Teachers and Basic Training College Teachers. It is however, submitted that the pay scale of Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges and Degree Colleges were same prior to 1,1.1973. It is however, submitted that the pay scale of Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges and Degree Colleges were same prior to 1,1.1973. It is high lighted that the Supreme Court did not agree with the High Court applying principle of equal pay for equal work in the facts of the case. It is urged that the extent of non-interference in the instant case is confined to 24 petitioners of whom 19 already retired and the benefit was allowed a personal to them and not in general. It is reiterated in paragraph 9 that: “........ the matter as to the feasibility of extending the benefit of UGC scale of pay to these 7 (seven) petitioners including other non-litigants (in service and retired) have been examined and submitted for consideration of the Govt...” 14. In view of what has been submitted by the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Education Department in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated by the Joint Secretary, Education Department in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondents. I leave it to the State respondents to consider the matter as to the feasibility of extending the benefit of UGC pay scale to the non-litigants. The State-respondents cannot be directed to pay UGC pay scale to all teachers of Bask Training Colleges of Tripura, present and future, in view of what has been held by this Court in its judgment and order dated 25.2.1987 and by the Apex Court in the order dated 20.2.1996 disposing of the appeals against this Court's order dated 25.2.1987. This Court in its judgment dated 25.2.1987 has held that the Lecturers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura could not have claimed the UGC pay scales on the basis of a policy decision of the Central Govt to accept such pay scale for teachers of University and colleges affiliated to University. This Court directed payment of such pay scales to them not on the said basis but by applying the principles of equal pay for equal work. But the Apex Court has negative this by holding that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in the facts of this case. This Court directed payment of such pay scales to them not on the said basis but by applying the principles of equal pay for equal work. But the Apex Court has negative this by holding that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in the facts of this case. However, for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 9 of this judgment, the Apex Court did not interfere with the directions of this Court and ordered that the persons who were still in employment would continue to be paid UGC pay scale vide order dated 20.2.1996 Having given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and all aspect of the matter, I am inclined to hold that 7 (seven) petitioners in this civil rule who joined as Lecturer of Basic Training Colleges before 20.2.1996 and were still in employment as such on that date may be placed on a different footing from those who joined as such after that date and were not in employment as such on that day for the purpose of giving relief as was given to the similarly situated 24 petitioners in above mentioned batch of Civil Rule Nos. 84 of 1969,88 to 109 of 1979 and 2 of 1980. 15. In view of what has been stated above, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of UGC pay scale to the 7 (seven) petitioners of the instant civil rule from 1.4.1979 or from the respective dates of their joining as Lecturer a of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura, whichever is later. The petitioner shall furnish certified copy of this judgment and order to the respondent No.2 the Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Education Department, who shall comply with the above directions of this Court within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the same. 16. This civil rule is allowed as indicated above. No costs.