Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 584 (MP)

V. N. Gopalan v. State of M. P.

2005-05-04

A.K.MISHRA

body2005
ORDER 1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have prayed for the benefit of extension of benefit of the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 3.5.1989 and for quashment of the order dated 13.1.2004 by which benefit has been given w.e.f. 17.9.2002. In these three writ petitions, prayer made is the same. 2. Petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the private colleges receiving grant-in-aid. 3. Petitioners were given the benefit of the revised pay-scale as per UGC guidelines w.e.f. 3.5.1989 as per order dated 24.11.2003, however, this order has been modified as per order dated 13.1.2004; benefit was ordered to be given w.e.f. 17.9.2002, the date of filing of the earlier petition, hence, these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners. 4. It is submitted that State Government has misinterpreted the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and modification was made by the apex Court with respect to the date of extension of benefit which was ordered on 3.5.1989. Petitioners have submitted that they are similarly situated employees with those who have been given the benefit w.e.f. 3.5.1989. They have also relied upon the rule 33 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules and also the decision rendered in LPA No. 469/2000 by the Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P and another v. Dr. P.K. Shrivastava and others on 26.2.2001. It is submitted that earlier the return was not filed. In the return filed in WP(S) No. 679/2003 the stand which has been taken is that the B.Ed. colleges are not run by the Higher Education Department but run by School Education Department. In Government B. Ed. colleges, teachers are not getting UGC pay-scale, in some private colleges, apart from that they run B.Sc., B.A. classes. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, in my opinion, writ petitions deserve to be allowed; even after filing of return no material is brought by out respondents to differ from decision of Divisional Bench of this Court in LPA No. 469/2000 [State of M.P and another v. Dr. P.K. Shrivastava and others] decided on 26.2.2001 in which it was held: “17. P.K. Shrivastava and others] decided on 26.2.2001 in which it was held: “17. Though the recommendation of the Pay Commission for revising the pays scale is recommendatory in nature but once the Government adopts such recommendations and revises the pay-scales on the basis of such recommendations, has implemented them for the similar post of Lecturers/Professors in the Arts, Science and Commerce faculties in Government colleges, University faculties and aided institutions and other institutions for teaching and non-teaching staff. There should be some intelligible basis for making distinction between the Lecturers/Professors working in other Government colleges or aided institutions and the Lecturers/Professors of colleges of Education for not extending the benefit of Revision of Pay Rules. In the backdrop of the fact that the State has not shown any rationale of its action discriminating one set of employees even before us, we have no option except to reject the State's submission that it could validly not revise the salary when it has revised of others. 19. The averment which has been made in the writ petition has to be accepted that work-load, qualifications and standard of work expected from the respondents are similar to the teachers employed in other faculties such as Arts, Commerce and Science. Service conditions such as rules of recruitment, qualification for appointment, age of retirement, service rules of Assistant Professors and Professors in faculty of Arts, Commerce and Science are equal in all faculties of all Government colleges and aided institutions as also in all Departments of college of Education. Thus, in the college of Education also, every essential condition remains as the same. Hence, there cannot be any discrimination. It appears that the, duties and responsibilities of teachers working in the college of Education are the same as that of counterparts in Arts, Commerce and Science faculties in the Government colleges and aided institutions. They are performing the identical work and similar duties and carry out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility, having same academic qualifications as are required to be done by their counterparts in Arts, Commerce and Science faculties in Government colleges and aided institutions. They are performing the identical work and similar duties and carry out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility, having same academic qualifications as are required to be done by their counterparts in Arts, Commerce and Science faculties in Government colleges and aided institutions. Thus, if the State denies them the equality without any rational basis, such action definitely amounts to denial of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws, violative of Article 14 and denial of opportunity in matters of public employment, violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. In Dr. I.M. Pandya and others v. State of Gujarat and another [1984 Lab & IC 241 = (1984) 2 SLR 352], High Court of Gujarat has also struck down the distinction between those teaching technical and non-technical subjects (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry) and those teaching technical subjects in Engineering college for awarding revised pay scales. It was held that the action is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 21. In another case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(1991) 1 Andhra Pradesh WR 236] considered the question where the recommendation made by the Inter-departmental Committee regarding revision of pay scales of Govt. of India employees including Medical Officers were accepted by the Govt. of India and the concerned Unit Heads had also implemented the same, non-implementation of the same so far as Medical Officers in CRPF were concerned on the alleged ground that it would affect the discipline in the Force was held to be clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. 23. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Markendeya and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [ AIR 1989 SC 1308 ] and in Delhi Municipal Karmachari Ekta Union (Regd.) v. P.L. Singh and others [ AIR 1988 SC 519 ] have laid down that the persons engaged in different departments were doing the similar work and as such, were entitled to similar benefit. 24. In the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others [ AIR 1988 SC 1663 ], it was held that the teachers of the aided schools must be paid the same pay-scale and dearness allowance as teachers in Government schools. 25. In YK. 24. In the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others [ AIR 1988 SC 1663 ], it was held that the teachers of the aided schools must be paid the same pay-scale and dearness allowance as teachers in Government schools. 25. In YK. Mehta and others v. Union or India and another [ AIR 1988 SC 1970 ], where the same pay-scale was denied to the Staff Artistes but was provided to their counterparts in Film Division under the same Ministry was held to be discriminatory, violative of protection given under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. When two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties, it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. One of the directive principles of state policy is "equal pay" for "equal work", which if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work, as another set of Government servants, it would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Same view has been taken in the cases of Grah Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1991 SC 1173 ], Randhir Singh v. Union of India [ AIR 1982 SC 879 ] and Surinder Singh and another v. The Engineer-in-Chief CPWD and others [ AIR 1986 SC 584 ]." 6. Submission raised by the respondents that colleges of Education are under School Education Department, cannot be a ground not to revise the salary of incumbents working in the Government colleges of Education or non-Government colleges of Education receiving the grant-in-aid. There has to be parity maintained in the matter of revision of the pay-scale; when revision was made with respect to other category of teachers and employees, there cannot be any justification to deny the benefit of the revision of the pay-scale to the Assistant Professors involved in the teaching of B.Ed. and M.Ed. classes when similarly situated employees' pay-scale has been revised for Assistant Professors teaching B.Sc., M.A., M.Sc. and M.Ed. classes when similarly situated employees' pay-scale has been revised for Assistant Professors teaching B.Sc., M.A., M.Sc. in the some colleges, non-revision of salary of education wing has no rationale behind it; I find that salary was rightly revised by the respondents w.e.f. 3.5.1989; there in no justification given by the respondents to recall the order. The salaries were revised of other category of teachers considering the inflation. Thus, the action of the respondents is found to be totally unsustainable. On the ground of parity also, I find that order which was passed by respondents was proper, the benefit was rightly extended w.e.f. 3.5.1989, change of the date as per order w.e.f. 17.9.2002 cannot be said to be justified at all as the respondents themselves have realized that salary was to be revised, it should have been revised w.e.f. the date the benefit was extended to the other similarly situated employees in the college of Education also. Thus, the order (P-8) is unsustainable; order (P-7) passed by the respondent State is restored. State Government to comply with the order as prayed within 6 months. 7. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.