Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 685 (GAU)

Kuntala Deka v. Gauhati University, represented

2012-06-05

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Ujjal Bhuyan 1. Heard Mr. K. P. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University appearing for all the respondents. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay her fixed salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month effective from 01-04-1996 till her superannuation on 31-07-2003 as part-time Lecturer of Gauhati University Law College (Law College). 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a practicing advocate of this Court. In the year 1979 she was selected for appointment as part-time Lecturer in the Law College following a selection process. Pursuant thereto, she joined as part-time Lecturer in the Law College in the year 1979 at a fixed pay of Rs. 700/- per month. The Law College was initially manned by part-time Lecturers appointed from amongst the practicing lawyers. They were paid fixed pay of Rs. 400/- per month, which was then the minimum of the basic pay scale of Lecturers of Gauhati University. In 1978-79, the pay-scale of Lecturers were revised and correspondingly, the fixed pay of the part-time Lecturers was increased to Rs. 700/- per month, which was also the minimum of the basic pay scale of the Lecturers. The basic pay of Lecturers in Gauhati University was again revised with effect from 01-01-1986 from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2200/- per month. The pay of the part-time Lecturer was fixed at Rs. 1500/- per month which was increased to Rs. 2000/- per month on the representation of the petitioner. There was further upward revision in the pay scale of the Lecturers effective from 01-01-1996. The basic pay of the full time Lecturers was revised from Rs. 2200/- per month to Rs. 8,000/- per month. The monthly pay of the part-time Lecturers was however fixed at Rs. 4,000/-. 3. According to the petitioner, the work load of part-time Lecturers vis-a-vis full time Lecturers of Gauhati University was more or less same. There was no difference in the number of classes to be taken and in the discharge of other academic duties. On the ground of equal pay for equal work the petitioner sought for enhancement of the remuneration of part-time Lecturers at-least to the minimum of the pay scale of full time Lecturers i.e. Rs. 8,000/- per month. There was no difference in the number of classes to be taken and in the discharge of other academic duties. On the ground of equal pay for equal work the petitioner sought for enhancement of the remuneration of part-time Lecturers at-least to the minimum of the pay scale of full time Lecturers i.e. Rs. 8,000/- per month. The representations submitted by the petitioner in this regard did not yield any response. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition on 28-07-2003 with the prayer as indicated above. 5. After filing of this petition, the petitioner retired from her part-time service with effect from 31-07-2003 after rendering almost 24 years of service. After her superannuation, the petitioner has continued with her legal profession. 6. The respondents had filed a counter affidavit on 05-01-2005 through the Registrar. The stand taken by the respondents is that the fixation of pay of part-time Lecturers of the Law College is entirely within the domain of the Gauhati University and not related to the pay scale provided by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC scale of pay is given to the whole time Lecturers and the Gauhati University has not taken any decision to extend such pay scale to the part-time Lecturers of the Law College. The further stand of the Gauhati University is that to be eligible to receive the regular pay scale, one must be appointed as a regular Lecturer following a due process. But after 1979 no such procedure was followed in the appointment of part-time Lecturers, whose appointments were for limited period though in the case of the petitioner, she continued her part-time engagement till 31-07-2003. The respondents have denied that the services rendered by the part-time Lecturers are equal to those rendered by the full time Lecturers and contends that the two services cannot be equated. It is further stated that the financial condition of the University does not permit it to provide higher pay to the part-time Lecturers. 7. Mr. K. P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasions, the fixed pay of the part-time Lecturers were equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale that was provided to the regular full time Lecturers, but that practice was not followed when the pay scale was revised with effect from 01-01-1996. 7. Mr. K. P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasions, the fixed pay of the part-time Lecturers were equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale that was provided to the regular full time Lecturers, but that practice was not followed when the pay scale was revised with effect from 01-01-1996. Contending that there is no qualitative or quantitative difference in the discharge of duties between the part-time Lecturers and the full time Lecturers, learned senior counsel submits that the demand for enhancement of the fixed pay from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month effective from the last pay revision is fully justified. In support of his submission, learned Sr. counsel has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Others Vrs. State of Punjab and others; reported in AIR 1994 SC 265 . In the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the appellants who were part-time Lecturers and not gainfully employed elsewhere should be paid according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed Lecturers during the period of their appointment as part-time Lecturers. 8. On the other hand, Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University submits that the petitioner's prayer is not tenable as the nature of duties of part-time Lecturers and full time Lecturers were different. He further submits that to avail the pay scale of full time Lecturers, one must be appointed as full time Lecturer for which one must have the requisite UGC norms. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had the requisite UGC norms to be appointed as a regular full time Lecturer. In the absence of the same, the claim of the petitioner is not legally tenable. He further submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Others(Supra) would not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was also gainfully engaged as a professional lawyer in addition to her part-time engagement. 9. The submissions made have been duly considered. 10. The principle of equal pay for equal work is constitutionally recognised and finds place in Article 39 of the Constitution. 9. The submissions made have been duly considered. 10. The principle of equal pay for equal work is constitutionally recognised and finds place in Article 39 of the Constitution. However, to raise a claim based on the said principle and thereafter seek enforcement of the same would require fulfilment of a number of pre-conditions. One of such condition would naturally be the nature of the appointment. A full time regular Lecturer is selected following a regular selection process for which one must have the minimum prescribed qualification. By it very nature, such service would be wholly and exclusively for the college. On the other hand, part-time Lecturers are not so appointed at least after 1979 as has been pleaded by the Gauhati University and not denied by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that there is strict adherence to the prescribed norms applicable to regular and full time Lecturers in the appointment of part-time Lecturers. By the very nature of such appointment, the service is part time as opposed to full time engagement with the further relaxation that such part-time Lecturer may also be gainfully engaged elsewhere. 11. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work implies equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. In the case of State of Punjab and another Vrs. Surjit Singh and Others; reported in (2009) 9 SCC 514 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined in detail the aforesaid doctrine and noticed that the applicability of the doctrine has undergone a sea change in recent times. Grant of the benefit of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" would depend upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity. 12. In the opinion of the Court, the two engagements do not stand on the same footing. In a given case, a part-time Lecturer may discharge his duty in a more dedicated manner than a full time Lecturer and may also take more number of classes than a full time Lecturer but that would not make out a case for extending the pay of the full time Lecturers to the part-time Lecturers as a whole. As rightly pointed by Mr. As rightly pointed by Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Others(Supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as besides other factors, the petitioner continued to be gainfully engaged as a professional lawyer. 13. It is true that the petitioner had rendered 24 years of dedicated service to the Law College and perhaps on a fair assessment of her individual case, her claim may be deserving. But the consideration of her claim has to be on the basis of established legal principles. No departure can be made from such principles based on the merit of an individual case. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 15. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.