Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
  • For the State: Mr. Shabad Bin Haque, J.C to G.P.I
  • For the University: Mr. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate
Judges
  • S.N Pathak, J.
Acts
  • Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.16. Rule 34 & 36 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
  • For the State: Mr. Shabad Bin Haque, J.C to G.P.I
  • For the University: Mr. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate
Judges
  • S.N Pathak, J.
Acts
  • Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.16. Rule 34 & 36 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (S.N. Pathak, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition was filed by a group of teachers (petitioners) who are working as Readers after promotion from the post of Lecturer. The petitioners were originally appointed as Lecturers in various colleges and departments (details of individual appointments are recorded in the opinion) and were promoted to the cadre of Reader under time-bound promotion statutes. All petitioners possess Ph.D. qualifications.

The petitioners challenge (i) Notification dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure-1) and (ii) letter dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure-4), and seek a mandamus directing respondents to consider their cases in light of certain Patna High Court decisions (including 2002 (1) PLJR 716 and 2005 (4) PLJR 174), to fix a uniform pay scale for Readers as envisaged in the UGC package (Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/-), and to direct payment of arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Interim relief by way of stay of the impugned Notification and letter was also sought.

Procedurally, counsel for the petitioners and respondents made detailed submissions; a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit were filed by the respondents. After considering rival submissions, the Court delivered judgment quashing the impugned Annexures and directing relief for the petitioners. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the classification adopted by the State/respondents — by fixing two different pay scales for the post of Reader (depending on mode/timing of promotion) — is constitutionally permissible and survives scrutiny under Articles 14, 16 and the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" (Article 39-D being invoked by the petitioners).
  2. Whether Annexure-1 (Notification dated 13.11.2001) and Annexure-4 (letter dated 31.05.2005) are liable to be quashed as being inconsistent with UGC recommendations and statutory norms.
  3. Whether petitioners promoted under time-bound statutes are entitled to the UGC-recommended uniform scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- and concomitant arrears (sought from 01.01.2006).
  4. Whether the executive (through administrative/departmental orders) can relax or override statutory provisions, or amend the effect of statutory/regulatory pay scales without following the statutory process prescribed (for example, under the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The respondents have illegally and arbitrarily fixed two different pay scales for the post of Reader in a discriminatory manner, contrary to the UGC Notification of 24.12.1998 and later UGC pay packages.
  • Petitioners, promoted under time-bound promotion statutes and possessing similar duties, qualifications and responsibilities as other Readers, are entitled to a uniform pay scale; mode of recruitment or timing of promotion cannot justify different pay scales.
  • The letter dated 31.05.2005 imposing conditions for grant of the higher scale is contrary to the UGC scheme and is unreasonable, illegal and void; petitioners who were already Readers before that letter are entitled to the Rs. 12,000-18,300 scale.
  • Reliance was placed on precedent authority (including AIR 1988 (SC) 1505 on "equal pay for equal work", R.R. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, and Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar 2002 (1) PLJR 716) to support the contention of impermissible classification and the entitlement to uniform UGC scales.
  • Apex Court authority (Union of India v. Atul Shukla) was also cited to contend that the State cannot draw artificial distinctions between similarly placed persons.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The pay scales were fixed following the guidelines of the UGC and the petitioners are not eligible for promotion/payment under the UGC guideline as contended by them; the matter is a policy decision of the State and not fit for interference by the Court.
  • There is delay in approaching the Court and petitioners, being aware of the option for acceptance of the pay scale earlier, cannot be permitted to reopen the matter.
  • If petitioners opt for the UGC pay scale, the respondents will consider them afresh under the UGC scheme; the State reserved the right to withdraw monetary facilities already given and recover/adjust amounts as applicable.
  • The Patna High Court judgments relied on by petitioners were argued to be not applicable to the instant case (respondents contended the writ petition lacked merit and should be quashed).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
2002 (1) PLJR 716 — Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar The judgment held that the condition contained in paragraph 14 of the Secretary's letter (dated 20.07.2001) was bad and illegal, offended Article 14 and directed implementation of the 1996 UGC scales without the offending conditions. The Court held the ratio of this case fully applicable and relied on it to conclude that the impugned executive conditions cannot stand; applied its reasoning to quash Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 and to direct implementation of the UGC scale for petitioners.
2005 (4) PLJR 174 This case was invoked in the petition's prayers as an earlier order which the petitioners sought the respondents to consider their cases in light of. The opinion records the petitioners' prayer to have respondents consider their cases in light of this order; the Court's decision references the broader line of authority including Patna High Court decisions.
[1989] 1 RLW (Raj) 165 — Dr. R.R. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan Principle that persons similarly situated with respect to status, designation and nature of work cannot be discriminated against; mode/source of recruitment does not justify differing pay (equal pay for equal work). The Court relied on this authority to reinforce that similarly situated Readers cannot be placed on different pay scales merely because of mode or timing of promotion.
AIR 1988 (SC) 1505 Cited for the proposition of "equal pay for equal work" deriving from constitutional principles (Article 39-D was invoked by petitioners). The Court noted reliance on this Apex Court authority by petitioners to support equality in pay where duties and responsibilities are similar; it formed part of the jurisprudential basis for the Court's conclusion against artificial classification.
Union of India v. Atul Shukla — Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-4719 of 2013 Invoked to argue that the State cannot draw imaginary distinctions when similarly placed persons are promoted through time-bound schemes and should not create artificial divisions. The petitioners' counsel relied on this Apex Court judgment; the opinion records this reliance as supporting the submission that artificial classifications in pay scales are impermissible.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by examining the statutory and regulatory framework and the sequence of communications and pay-revision exercises:

  • The Court observed that UGC recommendations and successive pay-revision communications (including a 22.07.1988 letter relating to the 4th revision and subsequent statutory provisions) provided a single consolidated scale for the cadre of Reader (examples cited: earlier consolidation to Rs. 3700-5700 and later recommendation of Rs. 12,000-18,300 by the 5th/6th revisions).
  • The Court emphasized that statutory regulation cannot be relaxed or overridden by executive instructions; administrative orders cannot be used to amend or circumvent statutory provisions or UGC recommendations.
  • The Court examined Rule/Statute-making provisions under the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 (Rule 34 and Rule 36) to underline that changes to pay scales and similar matters are governed by formal statutory procedures and that the Director, Higher Education lacked authority to unilaterally relax statutory provisions.
  • The Court applied established constitutional principles — including equality before the law and non-arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16, and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work (Article 39-D invoked by petitioners and supported by cited authorities) — to test the impugned classification adopted by respondents.
  • Relying on precedents (notably Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar and R.R. Gupta), the Court found the contested administrative measures (Annexure-1 and Annexure-4) amounted to unreasonable and artificial classification, contrary to the statutory and constitutional framework and the UGC recommendations.
  • Accordingly, the Court concluded that the impugned notifications/letters could not be sustained, and that petitioners promoted under time-bound statutes were entitled to the uniform UGC scale (Rs. 12,000-420-18,300) and arrears from 01.01.2006.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The Court quashed Annexure-1 dated 13.11.2001 and Annexure-4 dated 31.05.2005 and directed that the petitioners be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- in place of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-, with arrears of pay from 01.01.2006. The Respondent-State was directed to take immediate steps to provide replacement scales and arrears. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

Direct Consequences for the Parties

  • Annexure-1 (13.11.2001) and Annexure-4 (31.05.2005) are quashed and set aside as not tenable in law.
  • The petitioners are entitled to the UGC-recommended Reader scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- instead of the lower scale previously accorded.
  • The petitioners are entitled to arrears of pay with effect from 01.01.2006; the State is directed to implement replacement scales and pay arrears without further delay.
  • No order as to costs was made (petition allowed without costs).

Broader precedent-setting implications: The Court applied existing precedents and constitutional principles to invalidate administrative attempts to create artificial classifications in pay scales. The opinion enforces the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory/regulatory schemes; the decision's immediate effect is binding between the parties in this matter and doctrinally reaffirms the applicability of the cited authorities. The opinion itself does not purport to state a novel legal principle beyond applying established precedent and statutory interpretation.

Show full summary ...

    Prashant Kumar Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

    S.N Pathak, J.:— The present writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:—

    (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of Notification dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure-1).

    (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of letter dated 31.05.2005

    (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioners in the light of the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 716, 2005 (4) PLJR 174.

    (iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for fixing an uniform and similar pay scale for the post of Reader as has been envisaged in University Grants Commission package.

    (v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents after clearing the same, pay the arrears thereof w.e.f 01.01.2006 till today.

    (vi) During the pendency of this writ application, the operation of Notification dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure-1) and letter dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure-4) may be stayed.

    FACTUAL MATRIX

    2. The petitioners are working on the post of Reader with due concurrence and recommendation of the Bihar State University (Constituent College Commission). It is stated that all the petitioners of the instant writ petition were working on the post of Reader in different P.G Department under the Vinoba Bhave University except petitioner nos. 8 and 9. Petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 18.11.1981 as Lecturer in R.S More College, Govindpur in the Department of Botany, Petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit in Simdega College, Simdega on 20.01.1979, petitioner no. 3 appointed as Lecturer on 18.01.1981 in B.S.K College, Maithan in the Department of Sanskrit, Petitioner no. 4 appointed as Lecturer on 18.11.1981 in Birsa College, Khunti in the Department of Anthropology (Zoology), Petitioner no. 5 appointed as Lecturer on 29.11.1981 in J.J College, Jhumri Telaiya in the Department of Philosophy, Petitioner no. 6 was appointed as Lecturer on 07.01.1982 in St. Columbus College, Hazaribag in the Department of Economics, Petitioner no. 7 appointed as Lecturer on 29.11.1981 in Chatra College, Chatra in the Department of Political Science, Petitioner no. 8 appointed as Lecturer on 18.11.1981 in R.S More College, Govindpur in the Department of Anthropology (Zoology), Petitioner no. 9 was appointed as Lecturer on 07.01.1982 in R.S More College, in the Department of Mathematics, Petitioner no. 10 was appointed as Lecturer on 28.02.1982 in P.K Roy Memorial College, Dhanbad in the Department of Geology and working to the satisfaction of respondent authority. All the petitioners were given promotion to the post of Reader vide different Notifications in accordance with law under the provisions of Statute of Time Bound Promotion. All the petitioners have also done PhD. It is stated that the respondents have arbitrarily under the garb of this scheme deprived the petitioners with the scales, they were otherwise entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- Petitioners under the career advancement scheme of the U.G.C which shows that minimum length of service for eligibility to move into the grade of lecturers, senior scale would be 4 years for those with Ph.D, 5 years with those M.Phil and 6 years for those at the level of Lecturers and for eligibility to move into the grade of Reader/Lecturer-Selection Grade, the minimum length of service of the Lecturer in senior selection grade shall be uniformly 5 years. Fitting into the formula in the case of the petitioners, it becomes clear that the petitioners were otherwise eligible for being placed at the lecturer selection grade in the scale of 12,000-420-18,300/- at the time of promotion to the post of Reader under the scheme, but they have been placed in the scale of 10,000-15,200/- arbitrarily and depriving their right to get higher scale. Hence, this writ petition.

    3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Arun streneously urges that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily in contravention of the notification of the U.G.C have fixed two pay scales for the post of Reader in a discriminatory manner. Learned Counsel submits that the respondent-State cannot draw imaginary distinction when persons like petitioners have also got promotion in the cadre of Reader, be it through time bound promotion scheme itself. It is contended that the State Government has drawn artificial division not supported by Doctrine of Classification in the pay scale of Reader drawn from different sources like time bound promotion scheme or through U.G.C's scheme.

    4. Learned Counsel submits that the respondents have very cleverly not mentioned notification which has been issued by the U.G.C on 24.12.1998, on revision of pay scale, minimum qualification for appointment of Teacher in Universities and Colleges and other measures of maintenance of students, in this situation, the pay scale which has been given for the lecturers, selection grade/Readers, shows Rs. 12,000-18,300/- and it is only one uniform scale mentioned for the post of Reader, but in contravention of the Notification of the UGC, arbitrarily two pay scales have been fixed for the post of reader in a discriminatory manner. Learned Counsel submits that in similarly situated case, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has delivered the judgment that there cannot be two discriminatory scales of pay. The petitioner's case are also stand on the same and similar footing and when they are imparting same set of duties, working hours are same, teaching the same students, having same qualification, any arbitrary fixing of cut off date cannot deprive the similar benefits which they are entitled to. Learned Counsel also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that Constitution of Indian under Article 39-D “Equal pay for equal work applies if two classes of persons do the same nature of work under the same employer with same responsibility under similar working condition they are entitled for same pay which is also reported in AIR, 1988 (SC) 1505.

    5. Relying on the judgment reported in AIR 1988 (SC) 1505, learned Counsel further submits that the letter dated 31.05.2005 by which certain condition has been imposed and on fulfillment of said condition, scale of Rs. 12,000-420-18,300/- will be admissible to the petitioners is in total contravention of the UGC scheme and is unreasonable, illegal and void as the petitioners were working as Reader prior to issuance of this letter and are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- meant for the post of Reader.

    6. Learned Counsel argued that there cannot be any distinction between two sets of Reader on the basis of Readers who are promoted before and after 1.3.1989 and fixing of 1.3.1989 as cut-off date for giving two different pay scales for the post of Reader is in contravention of Article 39-D of the Constitution of India and Readers who are imparting similar nature nature of job having the similar qualification and have been promoted through similar selection procedure, are entitled to get uniform pay scale and in that view of the matter Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 are fit to be quashed and set aside.

    7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Patna High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court (2002 (1) P.L.J.R Page 716 “Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar”, [1989] 1 RLW (Raj) 165 “Dr. R.R Gupta v. State of Rajasthan”.

    8. In order to buttress his argument learned Counsel Mr. Saurabh Arun relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of “Union of India v. Atul Shukla” in Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-4719 of 2013 and argued that the respondent-State cannot draw imaginary distinction when persons like petitioners have also got promotion in the cadre of Reader, be it through time bound promotion scheme itself. It is contended that the State Government has drawn artificial division not supported by Doctrine of Classification in the pay scale of Reader drawn from different sources like time bound promotion scheme or through U.G.C's career Advancement Scheme.

    9. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed.

    10. Learned Counsel for the State represented by Mr. Krishna Murari Verma, G.P I and the University represented by Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that pay scale has been fixed by following the guidelines of the U.G.C and the petitioners are not eligible for promotion on the post of Reader as per U.G.C guideline. Learned Counsel argued that it is policy decision of the State and the Court should keep away from interference in the policy decision of the State.

    11. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that there is huge delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court and after being fully aware that they have given option for acceptance of the pay scale so at this stage they cannot be allowed to reopen the matter of discrimination.

    12. Learned Counsel further argued that if the petitioners opt for U.G.C pay scale, the respondent will consider.

    13. Learned Counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 12 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 10.09.2014 and submits that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the State Government scheme of promotion vide Annexure-A aforesaid they should give option for U.G.C scheme and they will be considered for promotion afresh as per U.G.C scheme and the State Government shall withdraw the monetary facilities already given to them and the amount shall be recoverable/adjustable as may be applicable in each case.

    14. Learned Counsel submits that the judgment of Patna High Court relied on by the petitioner is not at all applicable in the instant case and hence writ petition is devoid of any merit and fit to be quashed and set aside.

    15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and going through the records of the case and the averments made in the writ application as well as that of the counter-affidavit, I am of the considered view that there is force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that there cannot be unreasonable classification. The contention of the Counsel for the respondents is not well founded and not acceptable to this Hon'ble Court. The respondents cannot be allowed to travel against the provision of law. The statutory regulation cannot be relaxed by executive instructions. The Rules and guidelines as envisaged by the University Grants Commission cannot be relaxed and cannot be given go-bye. Such relaxation by way of executive instructions are in complete defiance of statutory provisions and as such there cannot be artificial division. The theory of equal pay for equal work fully applies in the instant case. The U.G.C has recommended only one scale of Reader and only by way of executive order, the respondents are trying to amend the statute which cannot be allowed. The Director, Higher Education has no authority under the law to relax the statutory provisions or the notifications which is against Jharkhand State University Act, 2000.

    16. Rule 34 & 36 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 speaks about as to how they are made.

    34. The Statutes,- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely;

    (a) the institution of Fellowship, Scholarships, exhibitions, medals and prizes:

    9(b) the designations and powers of the officers of the University:

    (c) the constitution, powers, functions and duties of the authorities of the University:

    (d) the admission of educational institutions as colleges and the withdrawal of privileges from Colleges so admitted:

    (e) the institution of Colleges and hostels and their maintenance and management:

    (f) the classification of teachers of the University, the manner of their appointment and their recognition:

    (g) the constitution of pension, insurance or provident fund for benefit of the officers, teachers and other servants of the University, and the teacher of Colleges:

    (h) the maintenance of the register of registered graduates:

    (I) the number, qualification, grade, pay reservation of posts for [scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, Backward Classes, Women and economically weaker sections] and conditions of service of teachers, officers and other servants of the University including the creation of new posts after considering, as the case may be, the recommendations of the Academic Council and the Syndicate, in the case of creation of other posts, and the recommendation of the Syndicate, in the case of posts of officers and servants of the University;

    (j) the maintenance of accounts of the income and expenditure of the University including the income and expenditure of Colleges and the forms and registers in which such accounts shall be kept;

    (k) the maintenance of a register of teachers;

    (l) the conferment of honorary degrees and distinctions;

    (m) all other matters which are or may be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Statutes.

    36. Statutes how made. (1) The Senate may, either on its own motion or on submission by the Syndicate, make Statutes, or amend or repeal it: provided

    (a) the Senate shall not consider any statute having the effect of charging the number of post of teachers, officers and servants of the University, their pay scales or pay order; unless such a draft is recommended by the Chancellor for the considerations of the Senate;

    (b) the Syndicate shall not propose any such statutes, as may affect the status, powers and constitution of any authority of the University, unless that authority has been allowed an opportunity to furnish written opinion upon the proposed changes, and the Senate shall have to consider such option expressed in writing; and

    (c) in matters relating to status, powers, functions and constitution of the Academic Council, it shall be lawful for the Academic Council to initiate such Statutes and forward it to the Syndicate, which shall submit it to the Senate with such recommendations as it may like to make.

    (2) if the draft of any Statutes or a portion thereof, after being presented by the Syndicate before the Senate is sent back to the Syndicate for reconsideration, and the Syndicate does not agree, after reconsideration, to the amendments suggested by the Senate, then it shall be lawful for the Senate to pass the Statutes or a portion of the Statutes in such form, as it may deem appropriate, and the decision of the Senate shall, subject to the provision contained in sub Section (3) sub section (4), be that [3 where the Senate has passed the draft of any statute if shall be submitted to the Chancellor who shall declare that he assents thereto as passed by the Senate or with such amendments as he deems proper;]

    Provided that the Chancellor may as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the draft of the Statute so passed for assent, return the draft together with a message requesting that the Senate shall consider the draft and when the draft is so returned, the Senate shall consider the draft accordingly and if the draft is passed again by the Senate with or without any amendment and is presented to the Chancellor for assent, the Chancellor for assent, the Chancellor shall declare either that [he assents thereto with such amendments which he deems proper] or that he withholds assent there from.

    (4) Where any member of the Senate proposes to be Senate of the draft of any Statute, the Senate shall refer the same to the Syndicate, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the Syndicate to consider the draft and the Syndicate may either recommend to the Senate that the proposal be rejected or submit the draft to the Senate in such forms as the Syndicate may approve, and the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any draft so submitted as they apply in case of the draft proposed to the Senate by the Syndicate.

    (5) A statute passed by the Senate shall have no validity until it has been assented to by the Chancellor.

    (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the above clauses, if at any time when the Senate is not in session and the Chancellor is satisfied that it is necessary to frame Statutes on any subject, the Chancellor after obtaining the advice of the Department of Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand] shall send the draft Statutes for opinion to the Syndicate of the University and it shall be binding on the Vice Chancellor to convene a meeting of the Syndicate for consideration of the drafts statutes within 10 days of receipt of the said draft. The Chancellor shall then give his assents to the Statutes with such amendments as may deem necessary in the light of the opinion of the Syndicate. The Statutes shall be deemed to have come into force in the University form the date of assent. Statutes framed in this manner shall be placed before the next meeting of the Senate for confirmation.

    17. It is evident from letter dated 22.07.1988 issued by the Govt. of India Ministry of H.R.D in respect to the 4th revision of pay scale by which since 1988 two scale of pay of Reader has been combined into single scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and they have been given revised scale of Rs. 3700-5700.

    Scales of pay

    (i) The two scales of pay of Readers mentioned in Annexure-1 to the Scheme are combined into a single scale of Rs. 3700-125-4950-150-5700. Consequently all existing Readers and Selection Grade Lecturers in Colleges in the scale of Rs. 1200-1900 will be placed in the revised scale of Rs. 3700-5700. The revised Selection Grade for Lecturers will also be Rs. 3700-5700.

    (ii) The revised pay of the vice-chancellor will be Rs. 7600 (fixed). This revised pay is applicable to central Universities. The State Governments may, if they so wish, adopt this pay for State Universities also. But no financial assistance will be available from the Central Government for this purpose.

    (iii) The scheme of Professor of Eminence is being further examined and a decision in this regard will be communicated in due course.”

    18. From bare perusal, it is apparent that only one scale has been provided for cadre of Reader i.e 3700-5700. It is also evident from statute No. 22 in respect to the revision of pay scale of University and Degree College teachers which came in existence on 07.08.1989 w.e.f 1.1.86 after the letter issued by the H.R.D Govt. of India and there also scale of Reader is only one i.e 3700 to 5700 from earlier existing scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1900. 5 scale of pay commission dated 27.07.1998 also does not differentiate the two scale of Reader and recommended only one scale of Reader i.e Rs. 12000-18,300/-.

    19. The notification dated 16.05.2005 of the State of Bihar was amended by the executive order dated 20.07.2001 and only one scale of Reader has been given i.e Rs. 12,000 to 18,300/-. Now when 6 pay revision has came into existence and the Govt. of India, Ministry of HRD has also recommended for revision of pay to teachers and from bare perusal of the letter dated 31.12.2008 by which 6 pay revision of scale has been given w.e.f 01.01.2006 also speaks of one scale of Reader i.e 12,000-18,300/-.

    20. Since the petitioners have completed 8 years of service which is required for further promotion to the post of Lecturer, they cannot be discriminated and also in view of the fact that State of Jharkhand has adopted for implementation of 6 U.G.C package on 8.01.2011, the petitioners are entitled for arrears of their revised scale w.e.f 1.1.96 or at best from the date of issuance of U.G.C revision of pay scale on 27.07.1998

    21. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in case of “Dr. R.R Gupta v. State of Rajasthan”, reported in [1989] 1 RLW (Raj) 165 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2558/1988 decided on: December 09, 1988 held that:

    “Persons similarly situated with reference to their status, designation, nature of work, quantum of work, quality of work, duty they have to perform-Source of recruitment does not make them different in any manner-There is no distinction between the promotees or direct recruits.”

    (Para 7) (b) Constitution of India-Art. 39-Equal pay for equal work-Directive principles of state policy are fundamental in nature-Artificial discrimination cannot be made-Difference in mode of selection will not effect the doctrine of “Equal pay for equal work”.

    22. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in case of “Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh v. State of Bihar”, reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 716 and the Hon'ble Court after taking the relevant issues came to a finding:

    “Coming back to the controversy before this Court, it is held earlier in this judgment that the condition imposed for implementing the 1996 UGC scales as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter, dated 20.07.2001 is bad and illegal and it offends Article 14 of the Constitution because it purports to make a classification which is unreasonable, arbitrary and causes adverse discrimination against teachers promoted under the time-bound Statutes. The impugned condition as contained in para 14 of the Secretarys letter is, therefore, set aside. As a consequence provisions made in paras 15, 16 and all other provisions in the letter corresponding to and arising from the offending condition contained in para 14 will also fall to the ground. What, therefore, remains is the decision of the State Government to be given to the University and college teachers in this State the 1996 U.G.C scales sans the conditions as contained in paras 14, 15, 16 and any other corresponding provisions in that letter. The State Government is directed to give teachers promoted as Readers/University Professors under the time bound statutes the respective replacement scales like all other teachers and to implement the 1996 U.G.C scales, in the light of this judgment without any further delay.”

    23. This Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the case 2002 (1) PLJR 716 is fully applicable in the instant case.

    24. The upshot of the above discussions is that the classification made by the respondent for the purpose of different pay scales in the cadre of Reader does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution as rightly observed by the Apex Court.

    25. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, legal propositions, this Court is of the considered view that Annexure-1 dated 13.11.2001 and Annexure-4 dated 31.05.2005 are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such are fit to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 12000-420-18,300/- in place of Rs. 10,000 to 15,200 along with the arrears of the pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006 The Respondent-State is directed to take immediate steps for providing the replacement scales along with the arrears without any further delay.

    26. Resultantly the writ petition stands allowed without any order as to cost.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Prashant Kumar Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand
    (Jun 20, 2017)