State
of Haryana & ANR Vs. Ram Chander & ANR [1997] INSC 536 (9 May 1997)
S. B.
MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
S.B. Majmudar,
J.
State
of Haryana and Director of industrial Training & Vocational Education
having obtained special leave to appeal from this Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India have moved this appeal against the judgment and order
rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1267 of 1992 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and
whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the
appellants was confirmed.
In
order to high light the grievance of the appellants it is necessary to note a
few backdrop facts. Respondent nos.1 and 2 who only remain in the arena of
contest as respondent nos.3 and 4 were ordered to be deleted by an earlier
order of this Court dated 08th Apr 1997,
are working as Language Teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education
Institute. They teach Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12 students who
study in such institutes.
The
respondents were appointed in pay scale of Rs.600-1100/- which was subsequently
revised to Rs.1400-2600/- with effect from 1.1. 1986 as per Haryana Civil
Services (Revise Pay) Rules, 1987. The respondent ' grievance is that as they
were Language Teachers teaching students of standard 11 and 12 forming part of
higher secondary educational system should have been paid the same pay scale
that was made available to their counterparts who were teaching standard 11 and
12 students in higher secondary schools in the State.
That
they were equally circumscribed as their aforesaid counterparts and
consequently on the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' they were entitled
to higher pay scale which was made available to higher secondary school
teachers in these schools. Said higher pay scale was initially Rs.1640- 2940/-
which was further revised by the appellant-State with effect from 01st May 1990
to Rs.2000-3500/-. It is this revised pay scale which, according to the
respondents, should have been made available to them and as that was not
granted they filed Civil Writ Petition No.16543 of 1990 in the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana.
A
learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the appellants herein as
well as the contesting respondents Came to the conclusion that there was no
justification for the appellant-State to deny equal pay scales to the
respondents as were made available to Lecturers in higher secondary schools as
the nature of work carried out by the respondents was identical with the work
of the teachers in higher secondary schools. The learned Judge negatived the
contention of the appellants that respondents were not comparable with the
higher secondary school teachers as the respondents' educational qualifications
differed from those which were required to be possessed by higher secondary
school teachers-cum-lecturers. In the view of the learned Single Judge
educational qualification wise respondents were better situated. The learned
Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants
to make available to the respondents higher pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- as was
granted to higher secondary school teachers. However the arrears payable to the
respondents were made payable from the date of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge which rendered on 15th July 1992.
The
appellants being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge
carried matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondents
were on the other hand satisfied with the direction of the grant of back wages
as awarded by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the said
Letters Patent Appeal by its judgment and order dated 04th October 1993 duly endorsing the view of the
learned Single Judge. That is how the appellants have landed in this Court.
After earlier issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition a Bench of two
learned Judges of this Court by an order dated 20th February 1995 granted special leave to appeal and also directed that
pending appeal, there shall be an interim stay. Accordingly the order under
appeal has remained stayed till date.
Learned
counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the educational
qualifications of Language Teachers in vocational training institutes are
different from the educational qualifications for being appointed as a Lecturer
or Teacher in higher a secondary schools. He placed in juxtaposition the
educational qualifications of both these classes of employees as under:
Lecturers
in the Language teacher in the school cadre vocational Education Institutes
Master's Degree in i) Language Teachers (Hindi) 2nd Division with B.A. B.Ed
with Hindi as 50% marks in the one of Teaching subjects relevant subject. in B
Ed with a Master's Degree.
(ii)
Language Teachers (English) B.A. B.Ed. with English as one of the Teaching
subjects in B Ed with a Master's degree.
He,
therefore, submitted that a Language Teacher like respondents having ordinary
Pass Class Master's Degree cannot claim parity of pay scale with a Lecturer in
school cadre who is required to have Master's Degree in second division with
50% marks in the relevant subject. He next submitted that the cadres of both
these categories of employees are different Institutions in which they work are
also different Though they teach standard 11 and 12 students the respondents
cannot be said to be teaching the same type of students as are taught in
standard 11 and 12 in higher secondary schools which are non-technical schools.
He also submitted that the seniority of respondent-Language Teachers in the
vocational institutes is kept in common with the seniority of Technical
Instructor. He further submitted that granting of pay scales is within the
domain of a policy decision which the appellants have to take in the light of
Expert Committee report and such an exercise cannot be undertaken by courts on
the abstract principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. In support of his
contention he invited our attention to some of the judgments of this court to
which we will make a reference at an appropriate stage in latter part of this
judgment. In short he submitted that the respondents were not at all comparable
from the point of view of quality of work and educational qualifications with
the Lecturers in school cadre and consequently the High Court had patently
erred in law in directing the appellants to pay the same pay scales to the
respondents as were available to the Lecturers in school cadre.
On the
other hand learned senior counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that
the respondents were doing the same type of work as their counterparts in
school cadre. That both these categories of employees were teaching standard 11
and 12 Students who were belonging to higher secondary system of education,
that is, 10+2 system. That in vocational education institutes more emphasis was
given to technical type of education. But so far as respondent- Language
Teachers were concerned they had to teach standard 11 and 12 students, that is
to say, students in higher secondary classes English and Hindi for which the
same syllabus which was prescribed for standard 11 and 12 students in higher
secondary schools was to be taught. That the nature of examination in these
subjects was also same for both these sets of students. Thus qualitatively and
even quantitatively the work which the respondents were doing was almost
identical with the work which their counterpart Language Teachers were doing
while teaching higher secondary school students of standard 11 and 12. That so
far as the educational qualifications were concerned it was true that the
Lecturers in school cadre were required to have Master's Degree in second
division with 50% marks in the relevant subject, but the said educational
qualification was more than offset so far as the educational qualifications of
the respondent Language Teachers were concerned as they had to have
additionally B.A., B.Ed. Degree with Hindi or English, as the case may be, as
one ff the teaching subjects in Bachelor of Education course along with
master's Degree.
Therefore,
even though they might be holding Pass Class Master's Degree their expertise in
teaching was better being armed with Bachelor of Education Degree which was not
the requirement for Lecturers in school cadre. According to learned senior
counsel for the respondents therefore the High Court was right in taking the
view that even educational qualifications of the respondents were almost at par
if not better than those of secondary school teachers.
Having
given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions we find that before
a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the principle of `equal
Pay for Equal Work' it has to be shown by such claimants that qualitatively
said quantitatively the work which they do is of the same type and nature as
that of their counterparts whose pay scales are pressed in service for getting
the parity. Not only that but even educational qualifications must be
identical. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that
different pay scales can be prescribed for employees having different
educational qualifications. Consequently if the matter had rested at this stage
we would have been required to closely consider whether it was open to the High
Court to undertake the exercise of trying to find out whether Master's Degree
in second division with 50% marks in the relevant subject being the educational
qualification for becoming a Lecturer in school cadre represented an
educational qualification which was parallel and equivalent to the educational
qualification possessed by a Language Teacher in technical institutes having
B.A. B.Ed. Degree with the concerned subject as one of the teaching subjects in
B.Ed. and 'a Master's Degree which may be even a Pass Class Master's Degree.
However the said exercise is spared for us for the reasons which we now proceed
to unfold.
On 02 May 1995 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court
consisting of K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ., passed the following order :
"Learned
counsel for the appellant is directed to produce the record of the pay
commission relating to the fixation of the pay scales to the language teachers
working in Training Institutes and Lecturers in School cadre fixing 1400-2600
and 2000-3500 respectively.
Learned
counsel seeks for and is granted six weeks' time for doing the needful."
Despite the aforesaid order being passed as early as 02nd May 1995 the appellants did not produce the
relevant requisite material. That was noted by us when this matter reached for
final hearing before us. By our order dated 08th April 1997, therefore, we passed the following
order :
"I.A.
No.4 stands granted.
Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 will stand deleted from the record of the case. After this matter
was heard for some time we were informed that the appellant State has not
complied with the order of this Court of 2nd May, 1995 despite being granted many
opportunities to comply with the same. By an order dated 21st March, 1996, another Bench of this Court
granted further 6 weeks' time to comply with the order. Still till date nothing
has been done. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for
the appellant, he prayed for a last ; opportunity to comply with the order of
this Court and requested for some more time. It is made clear to him that
within this further time if this order is not complied with and the necessary
papers are not produced, the appeal will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly
as a last opportunity weeks' time is granted to comply with the order of 2nd May, 1995 and to produce necessary
information required thereby. It is clarified that this will be the last
opportunity. The appeal is adjourned to 29.4.1997 as part heard. It is further
made clear that in case there was no pay Commission as stated, but any other
body of Experts which went into the question and had given any report, record
of the said report may be produce." It was only thereafter that the
appellants filed a printed copy of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1987 framed by the Governor of State of Haryana in exercise of his powers under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As the said response
by the appellants did not amount to full compliance with our order dated 08th
April 1997 in continuation of the earlier order of 02nd May 1995 we directed
learned counsel for the appellants to produce the copies of the report of the
Pay Commission or any other expert body whose advice was made available to the
appellants when they framed the aforesaid rules. Thereafter the learned counsel
for the appellants placed for our consideration Interim Report of the Pay
Revision Committee in respect of Group B, C and D employees.
He
submitted that the respondents' case is covered by the said Report and it was
that Report which was taken into consideration by the appellant-State while
promulgating the aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He also placed for our
consideration Report of the Pay Anomalies Commission which was required to
consider the anomalies in the revision of pay scales as granted by the
aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He submitted that in the light of the Report of
the Pay Anomalies Commission the pay scales were appropriately revised for the
classes of employees concerned. He made it clear that the pay scales made
available to Lecturers in secondary school cadre were revised with effect from
1.1.1986 from Rs.550-900/- to Rs.1640-2900/- as per the said Revised Pay Rules
while respondents' earlier existing pay scales were revised from Rs.525-1050/-
to Rs.1400-2600/-.
The
revised pay scale of Lecturers in higher secondary schools were further revised
in the light of Pay Anomalies Commission Report to Rs.2000-3500/- from 01st May 1990. In view of this material placed
before us we have to see as to whether the appellants in their own discretion
created a situation in which the revised pay scales made available to Lecturers
in higher secondary schools should almost automatically be made available to
Language Teachers in technical institutes teaching standard II and 12 students
who also can legitimately be said to be higher secondary school students though
styled as studying in technical institutes. When we turn to the interim report
of the Pay Revision Committee we find that the said Committee in the light of
the IVth Central Pay Commission recommendations undertook the task of
suggesting appropriate revision of pay scales of Haryana Government employees
by drawing an analogy from the revised pay scales suggested for Central
Government employees by 19th Central Pay Commission. In para 10 of the Report
the Committee has observed that it has broadly taken, amongst others, various
factors into consideration while giving its recommendations. In para 10(b) it
has been observed as under :
"10(b).
As per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission and the notification
issued by the Government of India regarding the employees of the Central
Government and the Union Territories, different scales have been given for posts with the same
designations in the Central Government and various Union Territories. The Committee mas recommended such of the scales in such
categories as suit the State Government employees best in order to maintain the
existing parities." In sub-para (c) of the said para 10 the following
observations are found :
"10(c).
The experience, qualifications, mode of recruitment and job content etc. being
different in the Central and State Governments, the Committee could not go into
the details of these matters on account of constraints of time." Thus it
appears that the Expert Committee while recommending upward revision of pay
scales of Haryana Government employees had kept in view the revised pay scales
made available to Central Government servants under the IVth Pay Commission
subject to certain relevant adjustments.
In
pare 12 of the said Report, they referred to their first option to go simply by
the `designations' of the posts in central Government and recommend same scales
to the state Government employees. They said :
"
In this option, the same scales are recommended for the State Government
employees as have been given by the Central Government in such cases where the
designations are similar and the posts are identical..................."
[Emphasis supplied] and in para 16, they decided to recommend the first option.
Read
along with para 10(c) quoted above, it is clear that the Committee on account
of constraints of time, did not think fit to go by comparison of experience,
qualification, mode of recruitment or job content but by the comparative
designation and nature of post. In other words, the distinction based on
difference in educational qualification was not to be the basis for the first
option recommended by the Committee.
When
we turn to the annexures to the said Report containing the suggested revision
of pay scales of employees concerned we find at Annexure A-2 revised scales of
posts carrying present scales in Group `C' and `D' except posts for which
different revised scales are indicated separately.
Learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that at serial no.4 at Annexure A-2 to the
said Report are listed employees having earlier pay scale of Rs.525-1050/- as
was available to the respondents and the said scale was proposed to be revised
to Rs.1400-2600/- and it was this proposed hike which was accepted by the
appellant authorities for being made available to the respondents. It is not
possible to agree with this contention. The reason is obvious. At serial no.4
at Annexure A-2 to the Report is found List of employees who were getting pay
scale of Rs.525-1050/- and who were proposed to be given a hike r of pay scale
by raising it to Rs.1400-2600/-. In that list are found Librarians, Assistants,
Draftsman, Statistical Assistants, Veterinary Compounders, Assistants (of
Directorates at Headquarter) etc. Respondents obviously do not belong to that
category. On the other hand we find at Annexure `P' to the said Report the
proposals regarding revised pay scales of certain other categories of staff
which are common to the State Government and the Central Government. In the
Education Department at serial no.2 are listed Trained Graduate Teachers,
Headmasters Primary Schools while at serial no.3 are listed Post Graduate
Teachers and Head Masters of Middle Schools. Columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to
the posts, pay scales, emoluments as on 1.1.1986 and revised scales given by
Central Government to these employees while at column nos.6 to 11 are found the
posts under the State Government with the existing pay scales, total emoluments
as on 1.1.1986, total emoluments after adding 20% over 320 Consumer Price Index
and the recommended scales. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant
entries at serial nos.2 and 3 for comparative analysis :
A mere
look at these entries shows that the Central government Trained Graduate
Teachers were given a higher pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- while Post Graduate
Teachers and Head Masters of Middle Schools were given a higher pay scale of
Rs.1640-2900/-. So far as their counterparts in the State service were
concerned for Trained Graduates in State service the existing pay scale of
Rs.525-1050/- was sought to be revised to Rs.1400-2600/- while so far as the
Lecturers in higher secondary schools who were having degrees in Division 1st
or 2nd and who were earlier getting Rs.600-1100/ were sought to be given a
higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The `Remarks' column against serial no.3 is
more instructive. It says that the Commission recommended that Lecturers be
treated at par with Post Graduate Teachers of Central Government. It becomes,
therefore, obvious that even though earlier in the State service Lecturers in
higher secondary schools who were having first or second class degrees like
M.A. 1st Class or 2nd Class were having higher pay scale of Rs.600-1100/- as
compared to Trained Graduate Teachers who were having lesser pay scale of
Rs.525-1050/-, they were now sought to be treated at par in so far as a uniform
revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- was suggested for all of them. Thus so far
as Lecturers in higher secondary schools were concerned, earlier distinction in
the pay scales on the basis of first or second class Post Graduate Degrees was
sought to be done away with and these Lecturers were to be treated at par with
Post Graduate Teachers of Central Government. When we turn to column 2 of Entry
3 we find that under Central Government Post Graduate Teachers were all given
uniform hike in pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- meaning thereby the distinction
between Post Graduate Teachers having 2nd class or 1st class M.A. Degree and those
having a Pass Class Post Graduate Degree was given a go by and it is this
uniform hike in pay scale which was recommended for acceptance of the State
Government by the Pay Revision Committee. It is of course true, as submitted by
learned counsel for appellants, that these recommendations were not necessarily
binding on the State authorities and it was open to them to suitably modify the
pay scale which could be revised for different categories of employees on their
discretion. Even though that is so When we turn to the Revised Pay Rules
themselves we find that the appellants in their own discretion and wisdom have
accepted the aforesaid recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee and have
done away with the difference between the pay scales of 1st Class or 2nd Class
Post Graduate Degree holder Lecturers in higher secondary schools and the Pass
Class Post Graduate Degree holder Lecturers in higher secondary schools
wherever they may be working and teaching standard 11 and 12 students. It has
to be kept in view that both these classes of teachers have a common employer,
State of Haryana. Respondents may be working as
Teachers teaching higher secondary students of Class 11 and 12 in technical
institutes while their counterparts who are styled as Lecturers may be teaching
similar class of students in standard 11 and 12 in higher secondary schools.
Both of them, therefore, must be treated to be on par and were in fact treated
to be on par by the appellants themselves while promulgating the Revised Pay
Rules and making available to them revised pay scales as will be seen
presently.
When
we turn to the relevant rules we find that Rule 4 states that as from the date
of commencement of these rules, the scales of pay of every post specified in
column 2 of the First schedule shall be as specified against it in column 4
thereof. In the First Schedule at Part 'A' are listed revised scales for posts
carrying present scales in Groups 'D', 'C', 'B' and 'A' except posts for which
different revised scales were notified separately. Learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon serial no.6 dealing with all posts carrying present
scale specified in Column 3 and took us to Column 3 which mentioned Rs.
525-1050/- dealing with Groups 'C' and 'B'. It is not in dispute that the
respondents fall within that group Revised pay scale made available to them as
per these Rules from 1.1.1986 was Rs 1400-2600 But the respondents contend that
these scales would not be applicable to them as they will be covered by Part
'B' dealing with 'Revised scales of pay for certain other categories of staff'.
Learned senior counsel for respondents invited our attention to Education
Department and-under that caption are found at serial no 2 Master/Mistress,
Trained Graduates, Shastri/Sanskrit teacher D.P.E. whose pay scale from Rs
525-1050/- was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-. But at serial no 3 are Listed
Lecturers in higher secondary schools whose revised pay scale was shown as Rs
1640-2900/-. Once the respondents are found to be teaching in higher secondary
school they would obviously not fall in serial no 2 dealing with
'Master/Mistress, Trained Graduates, Shastri/Sanskrit Teacher D.P.E. They fall
within the category of Lecturers in higher secondary schools. They would
obviously, therefore, become entitled to uniform time scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-.
It is pertinent to note that in these Revised Pay Rules lesser revised pay
scale is not made available to Pass class Post Graduate Teachers as compared to
1st and 2nd Class Post Graduate Teachers in higher secondary schools. To that
extent it must be held that the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee
for treating all Post Graduate Lecturers in higher secondary schools at par for
the purpose of revised pay scales with Post Graduate Teachers of Central
Government and to make them available a uniform pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-
appear to have been wholly accepted. For grant of such a uniform revised pay
scale the earlier distinction between a Pass Class Post Graduate teacher and a
second class or first class Post Graduate degree holder teacher was totally
effaced by the appellants themselves. On this short ground alone the
respondents are entitled to succeed. They would be entitled to get the uniform
pay scale made available to Post Graduate teachers in higher secondary schools
as revised to Rs.1640- 2900/- under the Revised Pay Rules with effect from
1.1.1986. It is not in dispute that the said pay scale was further revised on
the recommendations of Pay Anomalies Commission to Rs.2000-3500/- from Rs.
1640-2900/- with effect from 1st May 1990. A
feeble attempt made by learned counsel for the appellants for submitting that
these revised pay scales were available only to those Post Graduate Higher
Secondary School Teachers who were entrusted with administrative duties, cannot
be countenanced for the simple reason that such a distinction was never
canvassed for consideration by the appellant before the High Court at any
stage. Their only ground for defeating the claim of the respondents was that
they were teaching in technical institutes while the Post Graduate Lecturers in
higher secondary schools were teaching in higher secondary schools and were
having different types of Post Graduate qualifications. It was submitted by
learned senior counsel for the respondents that all the higher secondary school
teachers having Post Graduate qualifications who were admittedly granted the
pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- by the appellants with effect from 1.1.1986 got the
further revision of pay scale to Rs.2000-3500/- from 01st May 1990 in the light
of Pay Anomalies Commission Report which was accepted and no distinction was
made on the ground of any higher administrative duties and, therefore, this
distinction sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellants at this
belated stage should not be accepted. We find considerable force in this
contention as the appellants have not even whispered on this aspect at any time
all throughout before the High court and even in their Special Leave Petition
in these proceedings.
We
have also to keep in view the salient features of this case which have remained
well established on record and which have been heavily relied upon both by the
learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench of the High Court.
They
can be catalogued as under :
1. The
respondents are Language Teachers, namely, they teach Hindi and English to
standard 11 and 12 students who study in higher secondary classes.
They
however teach these students in technical institutes. But these students join
these institutes after passing standard 10 examination. Their counterparts also
join standard 11 in higher secondary schools after passing the same examination
of standard 10.
2. The
respondents teach the same syllabus of Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12
students who appear at the same type of examination and write the same papers
as are written by the standard 10 and 11 students who are taught Hindi and
English in higher secondary schools.
3.
Whether a teacher teaches Hindi and English languages to standard 11 and 12
students in a technical institute or in a higher secondary school makes no
difference in the nature of duties and functions performed by these two sets of
teachers.
4.
Whether separate institutions under which they work maintain a different set of
seniority lists or not would be a totally irrelevant consideration for deciding
the question in controversy.
5. The
students of standard 11 and 12 who are taught Hindi and English by the
respondents are examined in the same subjects by the same institution, namely, Haryana
School education Board which sets same type of examination papers on the basis
of same syllabus, to the students taught by the respondents as well as to the
students who are taught by Language Teachers attached to the regular higher
secondary schools who also teach standard 11 and 12 students the very same
Languages English and Hindi based on the same syllabus.
6. The
students who are taught by respondents and pass out standard 12 examination
will get the certificate of 10+2 examination on the same lines as students who
pass standard 10+2 examination from higher secondary schools. These
certificates obtained by vocational education institutes students are exactly
at par with the certificates issued on completion of successful passing of
standard 12 examination by general education students coming out of higher
secondary schools.
7.
Both these sets of students are eligible to get admission in B.A., B.Com. etc.
and to pursue higher studies in colleges.
These
aspects deal with the quality of work. So far as the quantity of work is
concerned it is well established that in school cadre in Education Department a
Lecturer teaches 30 periods in a week, one period is of 40 minutes' duration,
i.e., 20 hours in a week whereas the Language Teachers like the respondents
teaching in technical institutes teach for 24 hours in a week, one period being
of one hour's duration, i.e., 24 hours in a week. Thus even quantitatively the
work which the respondents do is more intensive as compared to the work done by
their counterpart teachers in higher secondary schools. That the difference in
the nomenclature between the two sets of employees, namely, Language Teachers
like the respondents in technical institutes and Lecturers in higher secondary
schools does not represent any substantial cleavage in the quantity and quality
of work done by both these sets of employees.
In the
light of these salient features which are well established on record there
would be no escape from the conclusion that but for the difference in
educational qualifications both these sets of employees are similarly
circumscribed. So far as the educational qualifications difference is concerned
that would have, as noted above, made some vital difference but for the fact
that the appellants themselves in their own wisdom thought it fit to ignore
this difference in the educational qualifications by offering a uniform time
scale of Rs.1640-5900/- to all Post Graduate Lecturers a in higher secondary
schools. For all these reasons no can be found with the decision rendered by the
High Court especially in the light of latter developments at the end of the
appellants themselves who treated all these teachers at par by promulgating the
Revised Pay Rules in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Revision
Committee as well as Pay Anomalies Commission as noted in details by us
earlier.
Now is
the time for us to refer to a few decisions of this Court to which our attention,
was invited by learned counsel for the appellants. In the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 539 a
Bachelor of three learned Judges of this Court speaking through B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, J. held that in the absence of any clear allegation and/or material
suggesting that functions and responsibilities of both the categories of
lecturers are similar, they cannot claim parity of pay scales. It is obvious
that the aforesaid decision it rendered on the peculiar facts of that case. In para
12 of the Report this aspect is highlighted. The relevant observations are
found in the said para as under :
"The
material abovenmentioned goes to show that (a) the qualifications prescribed
for the lecturers in the Higher Secondary School and the non technical lecturers in Technical schools are
the same; (b) service conditions of both the categories of lecturers are same
and (c) that the status of the schools is also the same. There is, however, a
conspicuous absence of any clear allegation and/or material suggesting that
functions and responsibilities of both the categories of lecturers are similar.
Much less is there any allegation or proof that qualitatively speaking, they
perform similar functions. It is not enough to say that the qualifications are
same nor is it enough to say that the schools are of the same status. lt is
also not sufficient to say that the service conditions of similar. What is more
important and crucial is whether they discharge similar duties, functions and
responsibilities. On this score there is a noticeable absence of material.
Whether we look at the averments in, and the material produced along with, the
original petition or to the averments in the counter- affidavit or even to the
averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Government in M.P. No.2277 of
1985 upon which the counsel for the respondents has placed strong reliance), we
do not find any clear material to show that the duties, functions and
responsibilities of both the categories of lecturers are identical
similar." It becomes at once obvious that this Court, in the absence of
material showing equal quality ant quantity of work which was being carried out
by Lecturers in higher secondary schools and non-technical Lecturers in
technical institutes in that case, came to the conclusion that both these
groups of employees could not claim identical pay scales. As discussed earlier
there is ample material on the other hand in the present case. Our attention
was also invited to a decision of this court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur
etc. etc. v. Karnataka University & Anr etc. etc. AIR 1986 SC 1448 for
submitting that fixation of pay scales is the function of an Expert Body and
the Court should not interfere with the same. There cannot be any dispute on
this aspect. But as we have seen earlier the appellants themselves in their
discretion accepted the advance and recommendations of the Expert Body, namely,
Pay Revision Committee and offered uniform revised pay scales to all the Post
Graduate Teachers teaching in higher secondary schools. Learned counsel for the
appellants also invited our attention to the following judgments,
1.
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised)
and others v. Union of India & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 91 2. Harbans Lal and
others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & (1989) 4 SCC 459 for submitting that
`Equal Pay for Equal Work' is a concept which requires for its applicability
complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical
pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay
scales. In the light of what we have discussed earlier the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions do not get attracted on the peculiar facts of this case.
In the
result this appeal fails and is dismissed.
Interim
stay granted by this Court on 20th February 1995 shall stand vacated. The appellants will have now to make good to the
respondents arrears of pay in the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- as
claimed by them with effect from the date of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court, that is, from 15th July 1992, though their earlier pay
scales will stand nationally revised to Rs.1640- 2900/- from 1.1.1986 and to
Rs.2000-3500/- from 01st May 1990 and their increments in the said pay scales
will have to be worked out accordingly and their present pay will have to be
re-fixed accordingly. Only the actual arrears will have to be made available to
them in the said revised pay scales from 15th July 1992 as ordered by the learned Single
Judge end which part of the order has become final qua respondents as seen
earlier. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the appellants and all
the monetary benefits shall be made available respondents within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at the end of the
appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order
as to costs.
Back