State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. G.Ramakishan & Ors [2000] INSC
634 (8 December 2000)
D.P.Mohapatro,
S.V.Patil
L.I.T.J
D.P.
MOHAPATRA,J.
The
respondents herein, who were Post- Graduate students of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.16050 of 1991)
against the State of Andhra
Pradesh, represented
by the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department (Agrl.III), and the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, represented by the Registrar, challenging the Government
Order i.e.
G.O.Ms.No.742
dated 3rd December, 1990, in which the date from which they are entitled to
stipend at the enhanced rate was specified and sought a direction to the
respondents to pay the enhanced rate of stipend to them from 1st October, 1989
as in the case of Post-Graduate students of Medical Colleges in the State. It
is the case of the writ petitioners that prior to the issue of the
afore-mentioned Government Order, Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural
University were receiving stipend at the rates of Rs.1,000/- per month during
the first year, Rs.1,100/- per month during the second year and Rs.1,200/- per
month in the third year, same as in the case of the Post-Graduate students of
Medical Colleges. By the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.655, Health, Medical and
Family Welfare (E-II) Department dated 26th December, 1989, considering the
representation made by the Andhra Pradesh Junior Doctors Association, the rates
of stipend were enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per month for first year students,
Rs.1,900/- per month for second year students and Rs.2,000/- per month for
third year students with a direction that the order of enhancement was to take
effect from 1st October, 1989. A similar enhancement of the rate of stipend was
made by the G.O.Ms.No.742, Food and Agriculture (Agrl.III) Department, for the
Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural University but the order was given effect from
3rd December, 1990. The case of the writ petitioners
was that the State Government had always treated the Post-Graduate students of
the Agricultural University at par with the Post- Graduate students of Medical
Colleges in the matter of stipend and there was no rational basis to make a
difference regarding the effective date from which the enhanced rates of
stipend will be paid to the Post Graduate students of the Agricultural
University on this occasion. The respondents in the writ petition, denying the
claim of the writ petitioners, contended inter alia that it is not correct to
assume that the State Government was all along treating the Post-Graduate
students of the Agricultural University at par with the Post-Graduate students
of Medical Colleges simply because the rates of stipend paid to the two groups
of Post-Graduate students happened to be the same. According to the
respondents, there was no comparison between the writ petitioners and the Post-
Graduate students of Medical Colleges since the nature of studies, research
work and practical duty done by them are not similar. It was further contended
on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition that the writ petitioners
represented their case to the State Government for enhancement of the rate of
stipend and the State Government, after due consideration of the case of the
petitioners and the Post-Graduate students of Medical Colleges, passed the
order enhancing the rate of stipend with effect from different dates. A single
Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, vide judgment dated 28th April, 1992, allowed the writ petition granting
the relief sought. The learned Judge observed : It is very vaguely stated in
the counter that nothing prevents the petitioners to make a representation to
the Government. That is not a valid answer. No intelligible differentia has
been pointed out by the 1st respondent to discriminate the petitioners from
that of the medical post-graduates. As such, the action of the 1st respondent
in depriving the petitioners of the increased stipend amounts on par with
medical post-graduates with effect from 1-10-1989 results in invidious discrimination
infracting fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of
laws enshrined under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
Being
aggrieved by the judgment, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal
(W.A.S.R.No.29437 of 1993) challenging the same. A Division Bench of the High
Court, by the judgment dated 7th July, 1993,
dismissed the appeal on the ground of being grossly barred by time. The
Division Bench of the High Court, on perusal of the condonation of delay
petition (W.A.M.P.No.815 of 1993) filed by the appellant, held The facts
referred to above clearly establish that no sufficient cause is made out for
condoning the inordinate delay of 365 days in filing the appeal.
Therefore,
the petition is dismissed. The said order is under challenge in this appeal
filed by the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The
respondents have not appeared despite service of notice on them. We have heard
learned counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the judgment of the
learned single Judge, the judgment passed by the Division Bench and the other
relevant records included in the paper book. It is our considered view that on
the pleadings of the parties, the learned single Judge rightly came to the
conclusion that the State Government failed to show that there was any
reasonable basis or intelligible differentia for giving effect to the enhanced
rates of stipend for the Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural University
from a date different from the effective date of the Post- Graduate students of
the Medical Colleges, particularly when it was the specific case of the writ
petitioners that the State Government had all along maintained parity in the
matter of stipend paid to the Post-Graduate students of both the institutions.
On this occasion also regarding the rates of stipend payable to Post-Graduate
students in the two institutions was maintained. However, a differentiation was
made in so far as the date with effect from which the benefit of the enhanced rates
will be available; while in case of Post-Graduate students of Medical Colleges,
the benefit was extended with effect from an anterior date in the case of
Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural University, the benefit was extended
from a date subsequent thereto. This departure from the parity in the matter
between the two groups of Post-Graduate students, which had admittedly been
maintained all along, was assailed as arbitrary and discriminatory. When the
action of the Government was challenged on the ground of arbitrariness and
discrimination it was for the Government to plead justification for fixing the
two different dates in the matter. It neither stated in the pleadings any
reasonable or rational basis for giving effect to the enhanced rate of stipend
with effect from different dates nor did it place any material before the Court
in that regard. For this purpose it is of no relevance that courses of studies
of the Post- Graduate students in the two institutions and the nature of
practical duty done by them are different, for the reason that the matter under
challenge related to the date with effect from which the enhanced stipend is to
be paid to Post-Graduate students of Agricultural University. In such
circumstance the learned single Judge cannot be faulted for having taken the
view that the action of the State Government in the matter was not supported by
any rational basis or intelligible differentia. The Division Bench, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed
with costs.
Back