Indian Institute of
Technology Vs. M. S. Bidarkundi and Ors. [2008] INSC 1030 (2 July 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4625-4626 OF 2005
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY .......APPELLANT(S) Versus
ORDER
- The
respondents joined the services of the appellant-Indian institute of
Technology (`the Institute', for short) as Junior/Senior Research
Assistants (Academic Cadre), Junior/Senior Technical Assistants (Technical
Cadre) and Research Scholars. As they were stagnating for long without
promotional opportunities, the Institute promoted them to supernumerary
posts of Laboratory Superintendents with pay scales equivalent to that of
Lecturers. As the Laboratory Superintendents were not extended the benefits
that were extended to academic staff, the respondents filed WP No.1757 of
1988 seeking a direction to the Institute to classify them as academic
staff.
- During
the pendency of the said petition, the age of superannuation of employees
of the Institute which was originally 60 years, was increased as 62 years
in respect of academic staff (scientific design staff and others),
personnel of Registry (Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant
Registrar), Library (Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian) and
Physical Education (Group `A') who were on the roll of the Institute as on
31.8.1998, vide Resolution of Board of Governors dated 15.6.1999, pursuant
to Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998. As the Laboratory
Superintendents were not being categorized either as academic staff or as
personnel of Registry, Library or Physical Education, they were not
extended the benefit of the increased age of superannuation. Therefore,
they filed another Writ Petition No.922 of 2000, seeking a declaration that
they are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation (62
years) as per the Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998 and
subsequent clarifications. Alternatively, they sought quashing of the said
directive dated 31.8.1998 and the consequential resolution of the
Institute dated 15.6.1999, if they were to be construed as ignoring the
Laboratory Superintendents as a class from coverage.
- The
High Court disposed of the said two writ petitions by a common order dated
7.7.2004. It held that on account of passage of time, the issues raised in
WP No.1757 of 1988 had become academic and consequently disposed of the
said writ petition, as no relief was required to be granted to the writ
petitioners in that petition. In so far as WP No.922 of 2000, the High
Court declared that the respondents are eligible for the increased age of
superannuation of 62 years as per the Government of India's directive
dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications. The High Court also issued
a direction to the Institute to implement the said GOI directive dated
31.8.1998 and its clarifications and apply to the respondents, the
increased age of superannuation of 62 years. A further direction was
issued to the Government of India to release necessary grants to the Institute
to enable the Institute to pay the arrears of salary and other
consequential benefits to the respondents herein within four months. A
direction was issued to the Institute to pay the respondents, on release
of grant by the Government of India, within four weeks of such release.
The Court further directed that if the respondents were entitled to be
reinstated as a consequence the Institute should either reinstate them or
give the monetary benefits upto the age of superannuation.
- The
said order of the High Court is challenged by the Institute. The Institute
contends that classification of posts is the function of the Board of
Governors of the Institute under Statute 11 of the Institute with
reference to the functions or duties discharged by the holders of such
posts, and the court could not have taken over the said function and
classify the posts of Laboratory Superintendents or any other posts as
academic or otherwise. It is also submitted that while extending a
benefit, it is not necessary to extend the benefit to all the employees at
the same point of time and it is possible for the employer to make
dissimilar provision with regard to different groups of employees and that
would not amount to discrimination. Reliance is placed on decisions of this
Court in Ajoy Kumar Banerjee vs. Union of India & Ors - 1984 (3) SCC
127, and IIT, Kanpur vs. Umesh Chandra - 2006 (5) SCC 664.
- We
have considered the rival submissions. It is clear from the decision in
Umesh Chandra (supra) that classification of posts is the function of the
Board of Governors. If the Statute requires classification and Board of
Governors fails to discharge that function, the appropriate course for the
court is to direct the Board of Governors to discharge its duty and not
take upon itself the said function.
- Statute
11 requires that all employees of the Institute, except those paid from
contingencies, shall have to be classified into three groups : (a)
academic staff, (b) technical staff, (c) administrative and other staff.
Statute 11 also enumerates the several posts which fall under the said
three categories. The said statute also contemplates the Board classifying
any other posts as academic, technical or administrative posts, by
appropriate resolution. In these cases, the posts in which the respondents
were earlier employed fell either under the category of academic staff
(that is, the posts of Junior/Senior Research Assistants and Research
Scholars) or under technical staff (that is, the posts of Junior/Senior
Technical Assistants). All the respondents were promoted as Laboratory
Superintendents which were supernumerary posts and not cadre posts, purely
as a measure of relief from stagnation. The Board has not chosen to
classify the posts of Laboratory Superintendents as either academic,
technical or administrative, as required by Statute No.11, as they are
supernumerary posts. In the absence of classification of Laboratory
Superintendents by the Institute under any of the specified categories,
and as the said posts are considered as supernumerary posts, the
classification which applied to them prior to their promotion will
continue to apply to them. That is, those respondents who were earlier
holding the posts of Junior/Senior Research Assistants, and Research
Scholars will be continued to be classified as academic staff and those
who were earlier holding the posts of Junior/Senior Technical Assistants
will be continued to be classified as technical staff, until the Board of
Governors of the Institute assigns a classification to the post of
Laboratory Superintendent. We are therefore of the view that until the
post of Laboratory Superintendent is classified, the respondents should be
treated as continuing to belong to the category to which they belonged
before promotion to the supernumerary post of Laboratory Superintendent.
We are also of the view, to avoid confusion and uncertainty, the Board of
Governors of the Institute should classify the post of Laboratory
Superintendent under Statute No.11, by taking note of relevant factors
including the duties discharged by them.
- We
therefore allow these appeals and issue the following directions in place
of the directions issued by the High Court :
- Such
of those respondents, who were academic staff before their promotion as
Laboratory Superintendents shall be considered as academic staff for the
purpose of extension of benefit of enhanced age of superannuation;
- Such
of those respondents who were technical staff before their promotion as
Laboratory Superintendents will be continued to be considered as
technical staff for the purpose of considering whether they are entitled
to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation.
- The
respondents shall extend reliefs consequent to such classification, to
the appellants found eligible within three months.
- The
Board of Governors of the Institute shall classify the post of Laboratory
Superintendent under Statute 11 within four months from today. While
doing so, they may consider the representations of the respondents, for
appropriate classification.
- Parties
to bear their respective costs.
.........................J.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
New
Delhi; .........................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3