Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 497 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Dipika Saha

2007-08-01

A.B.PAL, TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2007
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 109 of 1997 granting the benefit of UGC pay scale to the Respondent-teachers from 01.04.1979 or from the respective dates of their joining as lecturer of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura, whichever was earlier. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State-Appellant and Mr. S. Talapatra, the learned senior counsel for the Respondents-teachers. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that on the recommendation of the Tripura Public Service Commission, the Respondents numbering seven were appointed as Lecturers (Class II gazetted posts) in the Basic Training Colleges under the Education Department of the Government of Tripura on various dates between 29.06.1977 and 16.09.1995. It would appear that in the year 1973, a Committee of the University Grants Commission ('UGC for short) on 'Governance of Universities and Colleges' had recommended higher pay scales to University and College teacher, which came to be accepted by the Central Government and that the Government of Tripura also accepted the UGC pay scales to teachers of all colleges affiliated to the University, but the teacher of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura were left out from these pay scales on the ground that Basic Training Colleges were not affiliated to any University. Thereupon, the twenty teachers of the Basic Training Colleges other than the Respondents herein had approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 84 of 1979, Nos. 88 to 109 of 1979 and No. 2 of 1980 praying for directing the State of Tripura to grant them UGC pay scales. This Court by the common judgment and order dated 25.02.1987 allowed the Civil Rules with the following observations and directions: 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 basis of the policy decision of the Central Government because it is an admitted position that these Colleges are not affiliated to any University, whereas the Central assistance was assured for affiliated colleges. 9. 9. *** non-affiliation to a University cannot be a cogent and relevant ground to deny equal pay for equal work. 4. Then in paragraph 20 of the same judgment, it was concluded thus: 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. 5. On an appeal filed by the State of Tripura, the Apex Court observed, "it is 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 out of 24 Respondents, 19 had already retired from service, and having regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the total financial liability rising 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 it 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 20.02.1996 disposing of Civil Appeals Nos. 1049-1072 of 1988 (Annexure-4). 6. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the State of Tripura issued the notification dated 27.05.1996, which is in the following terms: Dated, Agartala, the 27th May, 1996. Notification 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 1988, 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.... 7. Since the benefits of the aforesaid notification are obviously limited to the writ Petitioners therein and not to other teachers similarly situated, the Respondents herein claimed similar benefits and made representations to the State-Appellant to that effect. 7. Since the benefits of the aforesaid notification are obviously limited to the writ Petitioners therein and not to other teachers similarly situated, the Respondents herein claimed similar benefits and made representations to the State-Appellant to that effect. Unable to evoke positive response from the State-Appellant, this writ petition was filed by them. On the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Education Department the Learned Single Judge left the question of extending the benefit of UGC pay scale to the non-litigants, to be considered by the State. The Learned Single Judge also observed that the State could not be directed to pay UGC pay scale to all teachers of Basic Training Colleges of Tripura, present and future, in view of what had been held by the Apex Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply to the facts of this case. Having said that, the Learned Single Judge, nevertheless, proceeded to hold that the Respondents herein who joined as Lecturer of Basic Training Colleges before 20.02.1996 and were still in employment in that capacity on that day might be placed on different footing from those who joined as such on that day for the purpose of giving relief as was given to the similarly situated 24 writ Petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 84 of 1979. Nos. 88 to 109 of 1979 and No. 2 of 1980. It was so ordered accordingly. In passing the aforesaid directions, the Learned Single Judge was apparently guided by the refusal of the top Court to interfere with the directions of this Court in the aforesaid common judgment of this dated 25.02.1987 as already indicated above. It is these directions under challenge in this writ appeal. 8. It is contended by Mr. S. Chakravorty, the learned State Counsel, that the Respondents are not at all entitled to the benefit of the earlier judgment of this Court in which they were not made parties therein and both the judgment of this Court and that of the Apex Court are not judgments in rem. 8. It is contended by Mr. S. Chakravorty, the learned State Counsel, that the Respondents are not at all entitled to the benefit of the earlier judgment of this Court in which they were not made parties therein and both the judgment of this Court and that of the Apex Court are not judgments in rem. He further submits that the Learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the well-established judicial principles that directions issued by the Apex Court merely to dispose of case on its peculiar facts and circumstances do not constitute a binding precedent particularly in the teeth of a principle to the contrary laid down in a well-considered decision. On the other hand, Mr. S. Talapatra, the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and order, contends that the Learned Single Judge in issuing the said directions was merely applying the law of equity warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. It is his contention that the financial implications of the impugned directions are minimal which was duly taken into consideration by the Learned Single Judge, and such directions cannot be said to be illegal. He finally submits that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the counsel appearing for both the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and order, we are of the view that there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the State-Appellant. We fail to understand as to how the Learned Single Judge proceeded to issue the impugned directions when he was fully aware of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court therein which unambiguously observed that it did not agree with the judgment of the High Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work on the facts of the case. The Learned Single Judge also agreed with the observations of this Court in the common judgment and order 25.02.1987 holding in para 7 thereof that the lecturers of the two Basic Training Colleges could not have claimed the UGC scale of pay on the basis of the policy decision of the Central Government because it was admitted position that these colleges were not affiliated to any University, whereas Central assistance was assured for the affiliated colleges. 10. 10. It is well settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not for what could be inferred from its conclusions. There is no such thing as a judicial precedent on facts though counsel, and even Judges, are sometimes prove to argue and to act as if they were, observed the Apex Court, about half a century back, in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC 116 . A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. A judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says. It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Apex Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete law decided by that Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions, which were before the Apex Court. - See CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) SCC 363. We need say no more in this behalf. The directions of the Apex Court relied on by the Learned Single Judge in issuing similar directions cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a decision on a question of law. In our judgment, the directions of the Apex Court had been issued by the Apex Court merely for disposal of that case on its peculiar facts and circumstances, which cannot be the ratio of the judgment becoming a binding precedent. In the view that we have taken, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in law and, therefore, warrants our interference. 11. The net result of the foregoing discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.02.2000 be and is hereby set aside. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Appeal allowed