- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. R.R Gupta v. State Of Rajasthan
Judgment Summary — S.N. Bhargava, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
Sixty-six petitioners, employed as Professors and Associate Professors in various departments of the University of Rajasthan, filed the writ petition. All petitioners were originally appointed as Lecturers (Assistant Professors) and many were subsequently promoted under Section 11 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974, as amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1984 (notification dated 15-11-1984). Section 11 provided for personal (ex-cadre) promotion, setting different eligibility and promotion rules for Lecturers and Readers (Associate Professors).
The University Grants Commission revised university teachers' pay scales effective 1-1-1986. The Government of Rajasthan accepted these scales by letter dated 3-6-1988 and issued a partial modification on 25-6-1988 (substituting sub-para (vii)), followed by a clarification on 7-7-1988. The combined effect of these communications was to treat Professors and Associate Professors promoted under the ex-cadre scheme differently from those appointed by direct recruitment: promotees on or after 1-1-1986 were to receive lower pay scales than direct recruits, while those promoted before 1-1-1986 would receive the same scales as direct recruits.
The petitioners made representations complaining of the perceived anomaly and discrimination. The writ petition, filed on 27-7-1988, sought a declaration that the Government's action was discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The State was repeatedly granted time to file a reply but did not file one; at various dates (including 23-9-1988, 7-11-1988 and 30-11-1988) time was extended with conditions. The petitioners sought early hearing because of the deadline for exercising option for the revised scales (11-12-1988); the Court listed the matter and heard arguments after the State still had not filed a reply.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the communications of the State Government dated 3-6-1988, 25-6-1988 and 7-7-1988 creating different pay scales for Professors and Associate Professors depending on source of recruitment and date of promotion amount to unlawful discrimination in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the differential treatment violates Article 39(d) (directive principle) by denying the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" to persons performing identical duties under the same employer.
- Whether Professors and Associate Professors promoted under the ex-cadre scheme on or after 1-1-1986 are entitled to the same U.G.C. revised pay scales as those appointed by direct recruitment or promoted before 1-1-1986.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that Professors and Associate Professors who perform identical duties, under the same employer (University of Rajasthan), constitute a single class and are entitled to equal pay for equal work irrespective of source of recruitment.
- They argued that promotees could not reasonably have anticipated subsequent governmental differentiation in pay and had, in many cases, not opted to be considered by direct recruitment; hence the later distinction was arbitrary and discriminatory.
- Learned counsel for the petitioners expressly relied on Jaipal v. State of Haryana as authority supporting the principle that difference in mode of selection does not affect entitlement to equal pay for equal work.
State / Respondent's Position
- The opinion records that the State was repeatedly given time to file a reply but ultimately did not file any substantive reply. When the matter was being heard the learned counsel for the State sought further time to file a reply, but no detailed arguments of the State are recorded in the text.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jaipal v. State of Haryana | Difference in mode of selection does not affect application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work; promotees and direct recruits performing similar functions under same employer are entitled to equal pay. | The Court relied on Jaipal to support the conclusion that the Government's distinction between promotees and direct recruits (and between those promoted before and after 1-1-1986) could not justify unequal pay where duties and conditions are the same; Jaipal was treated as authoritative on equal pay irrespective of selection mode. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court approached the matter by first identifying the relevant class: Professors and Associate Professors constitute single classes respectively, performing identical duties, teaching the same subjects and students, and carrying out similar responsibilities (including research supervision) under the same employer, the University of Rajasthan.
The Court noted the sequence of events leading to the alleged discrimination: introduction of ex-cadre promotion under Section 11 (added in 1984), subsequent revisions of pay scales by the U.G.C. effective 1-1-1986, and the Government of Rajasthan's communications in June–July 1988 that created differential pay consequences for promotees and direct recruits, and further distinctions depending on whether promotion occurred before or after 1-1-1986.
The Court invoked Article 39(d) (a directive principle in Part IV of the Constitution), observing that it directs the State to secure equal pay for equal work. Although Article 39 is a directive principle, the Court treated its purpose as fundamental: to avoid discrimination among persons doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The reasoning emphasized that for two classes of persons doing the same work under the same employer, under similar conditions, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies and artificial discrimination in pay could not be sustained.
The Court relied on Jaipal v. State of Haryana for the proposition that difference in mode of selection (promotion versus direct recruitment) does not affect the application of equal pay principles. It held that promotees under the ex-cadre scheme could not reasonably have foreseen that the Government would later distinguish them from direct recruits for pay purposes and that such subsequent government action could not justify unequal pay where duties and status are identical.
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Court concluded that the Government's letters of 3-6-1988, 25-6-1988 and 7-7-1988 resulted in unlawful discrimination between promotees and direct recruits and among promotees promoted at different dates; this discrimination ran afoul of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d).
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The Court quashed the directions issued by the State Government by letter dated 3-6-1988 (Annexure-2), letter dated 25-6-1988 (Annexure-3) and letter dated 7-7-1988 (Annexure-4) as discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
The Court further held that all Associate Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and all Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300 as granted by the University Grants Commission.
Implications: The direct effect of the judgment is to entitle the petitioners (and, by its terms, other similarly situated Associate Professors and Professors within the scope of the order) to the specified U.G.C. pay scales, removing the classification introduced by the State's communications. The opinion does not elaborate broader implications beyond the relief granted to the petitioners. The Court recorded no order as to costs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.N Bhargava, J.:— This writ petition has been filed by 66 persons who are working as Professors/Associate Professor in various Departments of the University of Rajasthan detail whereof has been given in Schedule-A filed with the petition and it is not necessary to mention them here.
2. All the petitioners were appointed as Teachers in the cadres of Lecturers in the University of Rajasthan in different Departments. The source of recruitment for Teachers in the University of Rajasthan was direct recruitment from open market till 15-11-84 as per the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974. Persons who were appointed at particular posts used to continue on those particular posts for number of years for various reasons and they remained stagnant for a pretty long time. Realising this, and to avoid frustration among the teaching community, the Act of 1974 was amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1984 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, vide notification dated 15-11-1984, by which new section (11) was added which provided for personal promotion against ex-cadre posts. It has been mentioned in Sec. 11 that Lecturers (Assistant Professor) were eligible for promotion to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) after having rendered minimum 15 years of service or 12 years service with the qualification laid down by the University and such promotions were required to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit., whereas Readers (Associate Professors) were eligible for promotion on the basis of merit alone. Such promotions could be given to a person only once u/s. 11. Most of the petitioners were promoted under the Scheme of this Sec. 11. Soon thereafter, direct recruitment was also made and most of the petitioners had not availed of the opportunity as they had already been appointed as per Sec. 11 added in 1984. The petitioners have mentioned a typical example of Dr. H.L Agrawal who had been appointed as a Professor in the Department of Statistics vide order dated 29th October, 1987 in pursuance of the Scheme envisaged u/s. 11. He was called upon to act as the Member of the Selection Committee for selecting to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in Statistics, whereas he was also asked to appear for the interview for the post of Professor in Statistics.
3. University Grants Commission revised the pay scales of various teachers in different Universities of the country w.e.f 1.1.1986 providing the revised pay scales as under:—
S. No. Name of the post Existing Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale 1. Professor 1500-2500 4500-150-5700 200-7300 2. Reader (Associate Professor) 1200-1900 3700-125-4950 150-5700 3. Lecturer (Assitt. Professor) 700-1600 i) 2200-75-2800 100-4000 (Ordinary Pay-Scale). ii) 3000-100-3500 125-5000 (Senior Pay Scale). iii) 3700-125-4950 150-5700 (Selection Pay-Scale)
4. The Government of Rajasthan also accepted the said pay scales and conveyed the sanction of the Governor for revision of the scales of pay of various teachers of different Universities in Rajasthan w.e.f 1.1.1986 vide letter dated 3.6.1988 (Annex. 2). Another letter was issued on 25.6.88 (Anx. 3) in partial modification of the earlier letter dated 3.6.88 (Anx. 2) substituting sub-para (vii) as under:—
“(vii) The existing teachers in the University will have an option to continue to be governed by the provisions of the ‘Excadre promotion Scheme contained in the Rajasthan Universities’ Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1947 provided that they exercise that option in writing within two months of the date of issue of the order revising the scales of pay. Those who opt for the “Ex-cadre Promotion Scheme’ will also be entitled to the designations envisaged for various categories of teachers in the seheme, but the scales of pay will be as follows:—
Reader 3000-100-3500-125-5000 4500-150-5700″.
In continuation of these two letters, still another letter was issued on 7.7.88 clarifying that the Readers and Professors promoted under ex-cadre scheme prior to 1.1.1986 will be only allowed the grades of 3700-5700 and 4500-7500 respectively. The Readers and Professors promoted under ex-cadre scheme on or after 1.1.186 will be placed in grades of 3000-5000 and 4500-5700 respectively, provided they opt for the continuing on promoted post as per ex-cadre scheme.
5. The net result of these three communications is that those persons who have been appointed as Professors and Associate Professors under the ex-cadre promotion scheme, will not be entitled to the new pay scales of U.G.C in case such promotions have been made on or after 1.1.1986 and the cadre of Professors and Associate Professors are divided into two categories (i) consisting of those appointed by direct recruitment and the other (ii) consisting of those appointed by promotion. Among the promotees it makes a further sub-division those promoted before 1.1.1986 are entitled to the same pay scale as the direct recruits but those promoted on or after 1.1.1986 are given lower pay scales. Several representations were made by different teachers including some of the petitioners for removal of this anomaly but with no result. Hence, this petition has been filed, seeking to declare the action of the Govt. as discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on 27.7.1988 Notices were issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Notices were served in earlier part of Sept. 1988. When the case came up before the court, six weeks' time was granted to the State Government to file reply on 23.9.88 but no reply was filed and when the case again came on 7.11.88 before this Court, three week's time was further granted to file reply and in case the reply was still not filed, it would be presumed that the State will have no objection in accepting this petition. Still, reply was not filed and when the case again came up before us on 30.11.88, two week's time was granted to file reply but the reply was to be taken on record only after payment of a cost of Rs. 300/- to the petitioner. Thereupon, an application was filed by the petitioners that since the last date to exercise their option for revised pay scales was 11.12.1988, the case may be listed for orders in court prior to 11.12.88 A copy of the application was served upon learned counsel for the State. This application was allowed by this Court on 5.12.88 in the presence of learned counsel for the State and the case was fixed for 9.12.88 Even today, reply has not been filed. Learned counsel for the State still prays for some time to file the reply but that was opposed by learned counsel for the petitioners and therefore, no further time was granted. Arguments were heard and record has been perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1).
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. All the teachers belonging to one particular category i.e Associate Professor or Professors, constitute one class. Their work is identical. Their duties are identical. Their duty hours are also the same. Their designation is same. They are supposed to teach the classes as per the time-table. They are supposed to teach same students with same subjects, and also to act as guides for research work without any distinction, whether they are promotees under ex-cadre promotion scheme or direct recruits appointed by direct recruitment from open market irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed on 1-1-1986 or after 1-1-1986. Persons who had been promoted under the ex-cadre promotion scheme could not have envisaged or thought that the government at the later point of time will pass such orders distinguishing between the direct recruits and promotees under ex-cadre promotion scheme and therefore/they did not think it necessary or proper to opt and appear at the time of selection as direct recruits from open market. If they had known it earlier, they would have certainly offered themselves for selection by way of direct recruitment. All the Professors and Associate Professors working in the Universities in Rajasthan are similarly situated with reference to their status, designation, nature of work, quantum of work, quality of work, duty they have to perform and therefore, source of recruitment does not make them non-distinct or different in any manner, whatsoever. They all teach to the same set of students and there is no distinction between the promotees or direct recruitees. Under Article 39(d) contained in Part-IV of the Constitution of India, State has to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both the men and women. Though Article 39 is included in Chapter of directive principles of State Policy but it is fundamental in nature. It purpose is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. For the two classes of persons doing same work under the same employer with similar responsibilities under similar working conditions, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply and no discrimination can be allowed and the Government cannot discriminate one class with other in paying different pay scales. The State is under a constitutional obligations to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. No artificial discrimination can be allowed to be made in the manner it has been done in the present case. Their lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaipal's case (supra) have very emphatically held that difference in mode of selection will not effect the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work for both the classes of persons doing similar functions and duties under the same employer. In the present case, it is not disputed nor it can be disputed that the Professors and Associate Professors appointed on promotion under the ex-cadre promotion scheme or selected by direct recruitment work under one employer, University of Rajasthan and performing similar work under similar conditions. Their nature of duties and functions being the same, are entitled to the same pay scales whether they are direct recruits or promoted on the basis of excadre promotion scheme.
8. In the result, we allow this writ petition and quash the directions issued by the State Govt. vide letter dated 3-6-1988 (Annexure-2), letter dated 25-6-88 (Annex. 3) and letter dated 7-7-88 (Annexure-4) in this regard, causing discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. We further hold that all the Associate Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300 as granted by the University Grants Commission.
9. No order as to costs.
Alert