Tripura High Court
Sri Partha Sarathi Datta vs The State Of Tripura on 11 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 184
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 25
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 197 OF 2016
Sri Partha Sarathi Datta,
S/o Sri Narayan Chandra Datta,
Village-Sonamura, P.O. & P.S. R.K. Pur,
Sub Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati,
Tripura.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary Cum
Commissioner to the Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital
Complex, District -West Tripura.
2. The Director of Medical Education, Health & Family
Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
3. The Tripura Public Service Commission, represented by its
Secretary, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
4. Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and
Technology (RIPSAT), represented by its Principal,
Abhoynagar, P.O. Agartala,P.S. East Agartala, District- West
Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhomwik, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik,
Advocate General,
Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
Page 2 of 25
Date of hearing : 06.02.2020.
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 11.05.2020
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order
By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"i. Issue notice upon the respondents;
ii. Call for the relevant records;
iii. Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize/absorb the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor of Pharmacology in the Regional Institute of Pharmacology Sciences and Technology, shall not be issued.
A N D Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the effect of such regularization/observation shall not be given from 1st June, 2000 and as to why the period of service of the petitioner as part time lecturer shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, increment, pensioner benefits, etc."
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Part- time Lecturer for imparting lectures in Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Technology (for short, RIPSAT), Agartala, w.e.f. 1st June, 2000 for a period of 6(six) months Page 3 of 25 subject to maximum 50 classes per month @ Rs.60/- per Lecture. There was financial concurrence to such appointment. Time to time the service of the petitioner was extended as Part-time Lecturer. Vide Memorandum dated 28th April, 2015 the petitioner's service was continued upto 29.02.2016 or till the appointment of full time Lecturer, whichever is earlier [Annexure P/2 to the writ petition].
2.1 The contention of the petitioner is that for rendering his service, in the meantime, he has gained sufficient experience and he also acquired Master's Degree in Pharmacology in the year 2013 from the West Bengal University of Technology in first class. He is also a registered Pharmacist under the Tripura State Pharmacist Council [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. 2.2 During his period of service the respondents had tried to appoint regular Lecturer through the Tripura Public Service Commission (for short, TPSC) which accordingly issued advertisement. But after conclusion of the process no suitable candidate was found. The petitioner submitted series of representations to the respondents to regularize his service as Assistant Professor with regular scale of pay with consequential Page 4 of 25 financial benefits since the post of Lecturer has been re- designated as Assistant Professor (with regular scale of pay) w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
2.3 It has brought to the notice of this Court that the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura vide communication dated 25th April, 2015 [Annexure P/5 to the writ petition] informed the Secretary, TPSC to appoint the petitioner as he fulfils all the criteria of such recruitment. 2.4 Apart from his claim for regularization, the petitioner has also claimed for the pay scale as applicable for the post of Assistant Professor as he has been discharging his duties as Part-time Lecturer in the Institute due to shortage of Assistant Professors to impart education to the students of the Institute.
3. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 by filing counter affidavit have stated that there is no scope to regularize his part time service in the post of Assistant Professor, however, they have stated that the petitioner is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor and they have admitted the fact that he has the teaching experience of 15 years as Part-time Lecturer but his service cannot be regularized as his appointment was not a regular Page 5 of 25 appointment or ad-hoc appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor.
3.1 In Para 16 of affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondents have admitted that the petitioner has submitted several representations to the authorities concerned but they could not do anything as yet, for which the post remained vacant till today. However, the authority of the department has taken up the matter with the TPSC for recruitment of vacant post and he has to wait for the action to be taken by the TPSC (Para 18).
4. In his affidavit by way of rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that since he has been discharging his duties for the last 15 years without any break and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi's Case, his service deserves to be regularized in the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacy. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit received by this Court on 31.07.2017 wherein he has referred some decisions taken by the respondents which are the matters of development during pendency of the writ petition.
5. A proposal was initiated by the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Tripura to regularize the Part-time Lecturers Page 6 of 25 in the post of Lecturer in RIPSAT, Agartala in respect of the petitioner and one Sri Pran Krishna Roy, another Part-time Lecturer, RIPSAT. It is revealed that vide Note No.8, Para 2, regularization of service of Sri Pran Krishna Roy was approved by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Tripura, but finally it was not approved for the reason that present writ petition is pending for disposal. The Para 7 of the Note is reproduced here-under:
"(7) Regarding Sri Partha Sarathi Datta, Part-time Lecturer, who was appointed in RIPSAT since 01.06.2000, may kindly be seen at page-5. He was refrained in duty since November 2011 to February 2013 (16 months) to study regular M. Pharm. Course (2 years durative). Thereafter he has been continuing till date as Part-time Lecturer. Later he has filed a writ petition, vide WP(C)197/2016(P-16) in the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura for regularization of his service which is still pending. So, at this state his case for regularization of service is not possible. His case will be processed as soon as the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court to be received."
6. By way of another additional affidavit filed on 19.09.2018, the petitioner has brought on record that Hon'ble Health Minister visited RIPSAT on 14th May, 2018 and advised to initiate proposal for regularization of service of those existing Part-time Lecturers who have been serving since 2000 at RIPSAT and continuing for more than 18 years. In pursuance of Page 7 of 25 the said advice, the Principal, RIPSAT vide Note No.1, dated 06.08.2018 has initiated the proposal for regularization/absorption of the petitioner and one Sri Pran Krishna Roy in the existing vacant post as per their qualification as well as teaching experience.
6.1 The said proposal was further processed vide Note No.2 issued by the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Tripura proposing to regularize the service of the petitioner and another. Having perused the Secretary of the department had made a query as to how the service of the Part- time Lecturers would be regularized/absorbed in the regular scale of Assistant Professor without open examination. Further query of the Secretary, Health Department was as to how regular pay scale was given to Part-time Teachers of General Degree Colleges, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Tripura. To the said query of the Secretary, Health Department, the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Tripura had given another note vide Note No.4 that the existing Part-time Lecturers of RIPSAT had been serving since 1st June 2000 till date without breaking service and against post created with the concurrence of the Finance Page 8 of 25 Department. Further, at the time of their recruitment the respondents-Government had obtained an undertaking that the petitioner would not serve in any other Government/ Government undertakings or private organizations.
6.2 Further, the Director of Medical Education has mentioned that as per the notification of Pharmacy Council of India, all teaching faculty shall be full time basis. It was further made clear that the said two Part-time Lecturers have been serving for more than 18 years for which they should be absorbed in the regular scale of pay considering it as one time measure, if the authority desires for smooth running of RIPSAT. But till today no final decision has been taken by the Government to regularize/absorb the petitioner.
7. On the aforesaid pleaded facts, Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously urged that due to long tenure of service under the respondents as Lecturer/Asstt. Professor the service of the petitioner deserves to be regularized with regular pay scale. His further submission was that since the petitioner had been discharging his duties as regular Lecturer/Assistant Professor which was/is a sanctioned Page 9 of 25 post with the prescribed regular pay scale, the petitioner deserved to be paid the said pay scale prescribed for the post of Lecturer w.e.f. the date of his appointment i.e. from 2000.
8. His next plank of submission is that till regularization/absorption the petitioner should be paid at the minimum of the pay scale i.e. at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor.
9. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC, 148.
10. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was appointed as Part-time Lecturer and his service time to time has been extended as Part-time Lecturer, the nature of service would not entail the petitioner to be absorbed/regularized in the post of Assistant Professor without following established norms of employment. However, learned Advocate General admitted that the petitioner was/is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor.
Page 10 of 25
11. Next, learned Advocate General has submitted that the Court cannot direct the Government to regularize the service of its employee. Referring to the submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner in his writ petition has not prayed for granting the minimum of the regular pay scale and according to him, for this reason, the petitioner is not entitled to get the minimum of the regular pay scale.
12. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis and also perused the records annexed to the writ petition.
13. Undisputed fact is that the petitioner has been serving the respondent No.4 i.e. RIPSAT till today since his appointment in the year 2000. There was no break in service. An undertaking in the form of bond has also been taken from the petitioner so that he cannot work in any other Government organizations or PSUs or any private organizations. The Government records as narrated above clearly show that the RIPSAT is in urgent need of regular faculty. It is also revealed from the record that without any regular faculty the institute Page 11 of 25 cannot run. The last Note dated 06.08.2018 as placed on record is reproduced here-under, for convenience, in extenso:
"Note No.1 It has been advised by the Hon'ble Minster during the visit at RIPSAT on 14th May,2018 to initiate a proposal for regularization of service of the existing Pat Time Lecturer those who have serving since 2000 at RIPSAT and continuing their service more than 18 years with continuation in the concurrence of the Finance Department time to time (may be kindly seen in Page-2).
The details information of the Part Time Lecturer is given below:
Sl. Name of Part Date of Salary/ Remarks
No. Time Lecturer joining Honora
rium
Paid
(maxim
um)
1. Sri Partha 1st June, Rs.12,0 Sri Datta is taking
Sarathi Datta, 2000 00/- Classes (Theory &
M.Pharm PM Practical) as well
(Pharmacolog as Project work in
y) the Departmenet of
Pharmacology
since long as there
is no regular
Faculty available.
But there is 2(two)
nos. post of
Assistant Professor
in the Department
of Pharmacology
are lying vacant till
date. Sri Datta is
only one Teaching
Faculty for the
Pharmacology
Department at
Degree Level.
Page 12 of 25
2. Sri 1st Rs.12,0 Sri Roy is taking
Prankrishna June,2000 00/- Classes (Theory &
Roy, B. Pharm PM Practical) in the
Department of
Pharmaceutics
since long as there
is no regular
Faculty available.
But there is 2(two)
nos. post of
Lecturer are lying
vacant till date. Sri
Roy is only one
Teaching Faculty
for the
Pharmaceutics at
Diploma level.
In pursuance of the concurrence of the Finance Department government of Tripura vide U.O. No.267/FIN/(G)/2000 dated 27th March, 2000 as well as with the approval of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura vide U.O. No.1759- CS/2000 dated 24-05-2000 and subsequent order of the Under Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, Health & Family Welfare Department vide No.F.11(11)-RIPSAT/DEG/1997 (Sub- File)/4718-83 dated 29th May,2000, those 2(two) no of candidates were appointed to the post of "Part-Time Lecturer". In addition to this as per the instruction of authority during appointment they had given an undertaking to the department stating that "they are not serving any other Government, Government undertaking or Private organization" (may be kindly seen in Page-1).
But unfortunately the said Faculty Members have not yet been regularized till date. In the meantime, they have crossed the age limit as per the norms of Govt. of Tripura. Further, they are getting very poor honorarium to run their family.
Under the circumstances, the file is submitted for kind decision of authority for regularization/absorption of their service in the existing vacant posts as per their requisite qualification as well as Teaching experience in the line of the respective Department for smooth running of the RIPSAT." Page 13 of 25
14. Against the aforesaid Note No.1, the Note No.2 was initiated which reads as under:
"Note No.2 Ref: Preceding Note No.1 ante-
It appears that Sri Partha Sarathi Datta and Sri Pran Krishna Roy are working as Part Time Lecturers since 2000, 1st June and at the time of their joining they had submitted an Undertaking that they will not serve any Govt. or Private organizations may be seen at page-1. Since then, both of them are still working as Part Time Lecturer with the concurrence of the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura time to time at page-1 & 2.
Now to meet up the deficiency of Faculty Members of RIPSAT, their services are very much essential as mentioned in Note No.1.
Further, it may be mentioned here that RIPSAT will have to full fill the criteria/guideline of PCI & AICTE in a Full fledged manners for the forthcoming Inspection very soon.
As per Gazette of India of PCI Notification, New Delhi issued vide No.14-163/2010-PCI dated 11th November, 2014 and in the Schedule (v) all teaching faculty shall be full time except in respect of the subjects like Mathematics and Statistics, Basic Electronics, Computer Applications, par-medical, Business Management, Engineering, Drawing and Pathology etc. where Part Time staff shall be permitted may kindly be seent ate page-20(corr.side).
Hence, their services may be regularized/absorbed against existing vacancy for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacology (Degree Course) in case of Sri Partha Sarathi Datta as placed at para-"X" vide Note No.1 and at page-4(back side) & page-7; Lecturer in Pharmaceutics in Diploma Course in case of Sri Prankrishna Roy against the vacant post as placed at para-"Y" vide Note No.1 and at page-3 & page-8 those who are presently employed as Part Time Lecturer as per Inspection Report at page-16 & 17 (corr.side).Page 14 of 25
As per Terms & Conditions laid down vide Notification No.F.2(86)/RIPSAT/ESTT/2010-11 dated 1st March, 2013 against the Pay Structure of ANNEXURE-I & ANNEXURE-II vide at page-9 to 12 (corr.side). Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 with AGP of Rs.6000/- per month in respect of Assistant Professor in Degree course and Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 with AGP of Rs.5,400/- per month Lecturer in Diploma Course.
In the context of above, their case may be considered by giving 1(one) time relaxation as they have exceeded their age limit for TPSC.
However, if their case is considered by the Govt. then necessary fund against salary head will have to be reflected in the Revised Estimate (RE) 1018-19.
Now if authority desire, the file may kindly be moved to Govt. for kind decision please."
15. Apart from that what I have stated in the earlier paragraphs, it is apparent that with specific approval of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura and required concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, the petitioner along with another were appointed as "Part-time Lecturer" with an undertaking that they would not serve with any other organizations. In the said Note the Government itself has stated that it is unfortunate that the service of the petitioner has not yet been regularized till date and in the meantime, the two faculty members including the petitioner have crossed the age limit as per norms of the Government of Tripura. It is further noted that they are getting very poor honorarium to run their family. The Page 15 of 25 File with the above observation of the Government authorities has been submitted to the concerned authority for a decision for regularization/absorption of their service under the RIPSAT. From Note No.2 as quoted above, it has come to fore that-
"RIPSAT will have to fulfill the criteria/guideline of PCI and AICTE in full fledged manner for the forthcoming inspection very soon".
It has come to light that as per Gazette of India of PCI notification, New Delhi dated 11th November, 2014 and in the schedule (v) all teaching faculty shall be full time except in respect of the subjects like Mathematics and Statistics, basic Electronics, Computer Applications, Para-medical, Business Management, Engineering, Drawing and Pathology etc. where Part-time staff shall be permitted.
15.1 The said notification of Government of India makes it mandatory that RIPSAT must have a regular faculty member in the Department of Pharmacology (Degree Course). Needless to say, the petitioner belongs to Pharmacology Department but the Government is running RIPSAT violating the mandatory provision of PCI notification issued by the appropriate authority of the Government of India. Further, non-compliance of the said Page 16 of 25 mandatory provision would lead the academic qualification and future of the students uncertain.
16. Next, in the said Note the pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor also has been mentioned in respect of Assistant Professor for Degree Course. This court has considered with enough importance and significance the observation in the Note where it is clearly mentioned that the case of the two faculty members under the Department of Pharmacology including the petitioner may be considered by giving one time relaxation as they have exceeded their age limit for TPSC. (Emphasis supplied)
17. Another feature that strikes this Court that in affidavit -in-opposition the respondents have stated that due to pendency of the present case they are not able to take any decision about the regularization/absorption of the petitioner, but, curious enough that during the pendency of the present case the respondents have initiated so many Notes expressing urgent necessity to have regular faculty members under the Department of Pharmacology keeping pace and consistency with the directives of the Government of India as noted above. Page 17 of 25
18. I have further considered the fact that the RIPSAT was upgraded to a Degree Institute in the year November, 1997 and at that moment there was an acute shortage of teaching staff in the said Institute and in that circumstance the Government had decided to create some posts of Part-time Lecturers vide Order No.F.11(11) RIPSAT/DEG/1997-98, dated 27.05.1999. Under these compelling circumstances, the petitioner was appointed as Part- time Lecturer. As I said earlier, the said posts of Lecturers later on re-designated as Assistant Professor which are sanctioned posts having financial concurrence. As the days passed on, the Government could not fill up those posts on regular basis replacing the petitioner and another person. Now, by this time, they have served the department for about 20 years without any break and have been performing the duties of regular faculty under the Department of Pharmacology. Further, when Note No.2 as extracted above reveals that proposal has been made for one time relaxation to regularize the service of the petitioner, then, in my opinion, there is no reason for not enforcing the said proposal.
Page 18 of 25
19. The petitioner has devoted his entire life to impart valuable service in the field of education and in this situation, not to absorb him in the said post would tantamount to exploitation of his helplessness and strikes the very foundation of human dignity. In my considered view, the proposal initiated under Note No.2 as extracted above and discussed hereinabove, is in the line of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court rendered in State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 1 wherein at Para 53 of the judgment the Apex Court held (SCC P.42)".
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. NAGARAJAN (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that Page 19 of 25 require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date......"
20. Here, it would be apposite to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vrs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 where it has been observed that--"a perusal of para 53 leaves no room for any doubt that the issue canvassed was of regularization and not pay parity".
21. In the case in hand, admitted fact is that the petitioner was appointed to discharge the duties of Lecturer under an emergent situation due to the up-gradation of RIPSAT to a Degree College, though as a Part-time Lecturer. Before appointment the post of Lecturer under the Department of Pharmacology was created by the Government with necessary financial concurrence and there is no dispute that the petitioner has been serving as a faculty member under the Department of Pharmacology, an institution of the State Government. Necessary File has been initiated to give one time relaxation to absorb the petitioner as regular faculty member under the said department since by this time the petitioner and another faculty member have exceeded their age limit to appear before TPSC. The Sate- Page 20 of 25 respondents also have mentioned the pay scale the petitioner is entitled to under Note No.2 as extracted above. The said decision of the authority under Note No.2, in my opinion, is not inconsistent with the spirit of the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's (3) case (supra). The petitioner has been discharging his duties and responsibilities most sincerely and diligently for the last about 20 years without any complain from any corners.
22. In my considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the service of the petitioner should be regularized by way of absorbing him as Assistant Professor providing him regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor. This opinion of this court is further fortified by the notification of the Government that every institute must have regular teaching faculty on full time basis to teach the students under the Department of Pharmacology (Degree Course). The State-respondents have been benefited with dedicated service of the petitioner for the last 20 years and in pursuance of Note No.2, the petitioner is entitled to be given one time relaxation for regularization/absorption in the post of Page 21 of 25 Assistant Professor under the Department of Pharmacology at RIPSAT.
23. Now, proceeding to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to enjoy the regular scale of pay, I have taken into account the judgment of Jagjit Singh (supra), where the Apex court after taking note of the long line of decisions relating to the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has observed thus:-
"57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the Page 22 of 25 cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-
"Article 7- The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays."Page 23 of 25
India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee - whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not Page 24 of 25 possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post."
24. In the instant case, for the last 20 years, the petitioner has been discharging duties as Assistant Professor. He has requisite qualification barring the age. Proposal has been made to relax the age considering long tenure of service of the petitioner. It is not the case of the State-respondents that the petitioner has not been rendering his duties as a regular faculty member under the RIPSAT. The petitioner has been performing all functionalities and responsibilities which a regular faculty member is supposed to discharge. In this position, I find no reason as to why the principle of "equal pay for equal work"
would not be invoked in the case of the petitioner to determine the pay scale of the petitioner as that of regular faculty member.
25. Having considered all aspects as outlined hereinabove, I direct the respondents to complete the process in Page 25 of 25 the line of Note No.2 in reference to preceding Note No.1, as extracted above, within a period of 6 months from the date the petitioner furnishes a copy of this judgment to the respondents or from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the respondents whichever is earlier. In addition, in my opinion, this is a fit case to invoke the doctrine of moulding relief and accordingly, till regularization as aforestated, the respondents are directed to pay the salary at par with the minimum pay scale i.e. at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale along with all consequential service benefits consistent with said pay scale as prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor which would start from the month the respondents receive the order of this Court.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed in the above terms and disposed.
JUDGE