Gujarat High Court
N.M. Patel And 11 vs Guj. Agricultural Uni. on 30 December, 2004
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
JUDGMENT Anant S. Dave, J.
1. The petitioners, working with respondent No. 1-University, have filed this petition for an appropriate writ, order or declaration that they are entitled to UGC pay-scale of Professors and/or its equivalent post, with effect from the date, when, the petitioners were appointed in Class I post as Professors or its equivalent post, and for a further direction to the respondents to fix salary of each of the petitioners on the basis of the UGC pay-scale available to them. By and large, the grievance of the petitioners is for parity of pay-scale on line with the UGC pay-scale given to other similarly situated persons by the University and, therefore, they have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1-University has 4 campuses situated at Dantiwada, Junagadh, Anand and Navsari under the Director of Campus or Vice Chancellor and Section 3 of the Gujarat Agriculture Universities Act, 1969 empowers the respondent-University to frame statues.
2.1 On June 1, 1972, the respondent No. 1-University was brought into existence and, initially, there were three sources of recruitment of staff, namely,
(i) from government servants who were working with the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Gujarat;
(ii) the Institute of Agriculture, Anand; and
(iii) the School of Agriculture, Aliabara. Accordingly, all the petitioners are in service of the respondent No. 1-University.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioners that, except Dr. R.D. Sheth and Dr. U.M. Damor, all the petitioners joined the service of the respondent No. 1-University with effect from June 1, 1972 as Assistant Professors in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-850, and continued to be as such, till they were promoted, according to the petitioners, to Class I as Professors or equivalent posts. All the petitioners, except Dr. N.M. Patel, Dr. N.R. Patel, Dr. R.D. Sheth and Dr. U.M. Damor, were promoted as Professors or to the posts equivalent to the post of Professors which is a Class I post, on May 17, 1974. At that time, the relevant pay-scale for the said post was Rs. 500-1250. Dr. N.M. Patel was promoted on 19th June 1973 and Dr. N.R. Patel was promoted also a few delays before the said date. So far as Dr. Sheth and Dr. U.M. Damor are concerned, they were promoted in May 1974. The relevant data about the service record of the petitioners is produced at Annexure "A" to the petition.
2.3 By order dated 25/29.9.1975, the petitioners were given the UGC pay-scale of Rs. 700-1250 with effect from 1st June 1972, which was, subsequently, revised and fixed at Rs. 1200-1900 with effect from January 1, 1973. The said revision took place pursuant to Government Resolution dated 21st February 1977, which was duly accepted and implemented by the respondent No. 1-Corporation.
2.4 It is also to be noted that, after the promotions were made pursuant to the order dated 15th May 1974, an interview was held by the Selection Committee and, subsequently, the services of the petitioners came to be regularized by office order dated 3rd April 1978 and, therefore, according to the petitioners, for all purposes, they were working at the relevant point of time either as Professors or on equivalent post that of Professor.
2.5 By order dated 25/29.9.1975, dealing with the criteria for UGC pay-scales for the Gujarat Agriculture University Teachers, a policy decision was taken by the Management and those persons who were working on the post of Professors or its equivalent post as on June 1, 1972 were to be paid in the pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600, while the petitioners, on the said relevant date, were working as Assistant Professors and, therefore, the above pay-scale was not given to the petitioners. Thereafter, there was implementation of recommendations of Sen Commission as regards UGC pay-scale and those recommendations were implemented with effect from January 1, 1973 as per Annexure "C" to the petition.
2.6 A grievance is raised in this petition by the petitioners against a distinction made out and continued with reference to the position of teachers as on June 1, 1972, with the result that the petitioners were given Sen Commission pay-scales of Rs. 1200-1900, whereas the teachers who were Professors or teachers of corresponding rank were given the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 and, according to the petitioners, these two different pay-scales were based upon an irrelevant factor of fixing a cut off line as on June 1, 1972, in spite of the fact that the petitioners and other teachers, who were given the benefit of higher pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500, were discharging the same duties, possessing equal qualification, length of service and experience. The petitioners have, therefore, raised a claim before this Court that, since the petitioners are discriminated in an arbitrary manner and due to unreasonable exercise of power by the respondent No. 1-University in fixing cut-off date of June 1, 1972 for giving benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 to similarly situated persons working on equivalent post and discharging similar duties, the impugned action of the respondent No. 1 is required to be set right by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also claimed that the petitioners were appointed and, thereafter, promoted and even the said promotions were also regularized by the University subsequently in the year 1978, and, when they are having requisite merit and qualification prescribed as per the notification dated 30th July 1973, the respondent No. 1-University has practised a hostile discrimination and a favourable treatment is given to other similarly situated persons and, therefore also, the criterion for giving benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 by fixing cut off line of 1st June 1972 is irrational, extraneous, irrelevant and it has no nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by applying such criteria and, therefore, the action of the respondent No. 1-University is illegal, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioners had, earlier, filed Special Civil Application No. 1370 of 1981 in this Court and such other persons had also field Special Civil Application No. 2677 of 1980, and both the matters were heard together. In Special Civil Application No. 1370 of 1981, the petitioners made the following prayers:
"(A) That by an appropriate writ, direction and order of this Hon'ble Court, it be declared that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay-scale as being paid to other teachers holding the post of Professors and/or its equivalent post who were holding such post as on June 1, 1972 viz. the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 and that each of the petitioners is entitled to such pay-scales with effect from the date on which he was appointed to Class-I post, whether as a Professor or its equivalent post and that the respondent herein be directed to fix the salary of each of the petitioners payable to him on the basis of the said pay scales as if the said pay scales were payable to him from the date on which he was appointed to the post of Professor and/or post equivalent thereto;
(B) That the respondent herein be ordered and directed to pay to the petitioners all differences in salary from the date of each of the petitioners became Class-I Teacher by appointment to the post of Professor or its equivalent post and calculated in the matter as stated hereinabove."
Therefore, according to the petitioners, it is stated that both the writ petitions were filed for different reliefs and it was disposed of by a common order on the basis that the claims made by the petitioners in both the writ petitions are the same. The petitioners have tried to make out a point that the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge disposing of both the matters suffers from the vice that the Professors and Assistant Professors are equivated and placed on the same footing as if the present petitioners who only wanted UGC pay-scale of Professors from the date on which they became Professors like any other Professors drawing the UGC pay-scale, were equivated with the claim of Assistant Professors.
3.1 The petitioners further stated that, being aggrieved by the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge rejecting the aforesaid writ petitions, they filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14th July 1993. The Division Bench, in the last paragraphs of the said order, observed as under:
"We heard Mr. A.H. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, saying that even after the appellants became Professors and those events happening after 1.6.1972, they have not been given the pay-scale as Professors. This is a different controversy, having a different basis. If, in fact, after the appellants became Professors, they were denied the pay scale annexable to the cadre of Professors, certainly, the appellants can insist for such payment and we are sure that any legitimate claim of the appellants would not be denied by the respondent. Leaving that question open and giving liberty to the appellant to resort to an independent process, if an occasion therefor arises, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal."
Therefore, pursuant to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14th July 1993 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, the petitioners made representation to the University on 28th July 1993, but, the same was subsequently rejected and, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. Respondent No. 1-University has filed affidavit-in-reply and has opposed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the fixation of criteria of 1.6.1972 has certain relevance. The Board of Management of the University, in its meeting held on 26th May 1975, appointed a Committee to recommend criteria for eligibility of teachers for UGC pay-scale vide Item No. 19.50. The Committee met on 22nd August 1975 and the recommendations were placed before the Board of Management in the meeting held on 22nd September 1975 and the Board had approved the criteria for eligibility of UGC pay-scale vide Item No. 21.3. 1.6.1972 is the date when the respondent-University was brought into existence. It is the say of the University that the pay-scale of some of the posts in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-850 was revised to Rs. 700-1250 in 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale. This pay-scale was again revised to Rs. 1200-1900 in 5th Five Year Plan. As per the Sen Commission recommendations with effect from 1.1.1973, by resolution of the Board being Item No. 36.26, dated 30.8.1977, it was decided that, in order to become eligible for 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale, the criteria are prescribed and, as per the said criteria, all the petitioners became eligible for the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1250 with effect from 1.6.1972 in 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale and, subsequently, when the said pay-scale was revised to Rs. 1200-1900 with effect from 1.1.1973, the said pay-scale was made available to the petitioners.
4.1 The respondent-University has admitted the fact that, so far as the petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, their services came to be regularized, since they were given only provisional appointments on earlier occasions, and the order of regularisation was passed on 23.2.1978. So far as the petitioners Nos. 11 and 12, namely, Dr. Sheth and Dr. Damor, are concerned, they were not required to be regularized as they were promoted regularly in accordance with the Rules. According to the University, since the policy decision was taken regarding eligibility for 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale for the teachers and announced for general information, the teachers working on the posts of Professors in the colleges and/or its equivalent rank, in the pay-scale of Rs. 500-1250 as on 1.6.1972 and also possessing the requisite qualification prescribed by the University notification dated 30.7.1973, were only considered eligible for UGC pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600 with effect from 1.6.1972. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not working in the then existing pay-scale of Rs. 500-1250 as on 1.6.1972 and, therefore, they were not eligible for the pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600 as per the decision of the Board of Management contained in the letter dated 25/29.9.1975. The respondent-University has, further, justified that the University wanted to provide uniform conditions of service to all the employees, who were transferred by virtue of the University Act, 1969. The post of Associate Professors and its equivalent were not in existence in the University on 1.6.1972 and all those posts for the first time created by converting one third posts of Assistant Professors carrying pay-scale of Rs. 350-850 and other posts were converted from the post of Professors carrying pay-scale of Rs. 500-1250. On 1.6.1972, there were 148 posts of Professors, Principals, Joint Directors, etc. carrying pay-scale of Rs. 500-1250 and like wise. On implementation of 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale, 78 posts were converted to the post of Associate Professors and its equivalent from 148 posts of Professors and its equivalent. There were 244 posts of Assistant Professors and its equivalent in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-850, out of which, 81 posts were converted to the posts of Associate Professors and its equivalent rank in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1250 in 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale. Due to this reshuffling in the establishment of the University as approved by the Board of Management in the meeting dated 16th March 1974, these posts of Associate Professors and equivalent were treated to be in existence with effect from 1.6.1972 for the purpose of implementation of 4th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale. It is further submitted that the petitioners were appointed and subsequently promoted as Professors or its equivalent posts before conversion of the posts and, after conversion, the petitioners were working in the posts of Associate Professors or its equivalent as per the criteria adopted by the respondent-University and were given pay-scale of Rs. 700-1250 and, thereafter, as per 5th Five Year Plan Sen Commission, pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1900.
5. Learned advocate, Mr. Arun H. Mehta, for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the case of the petitioners agitated before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1370 of 1981, was on a different footing and the present petition is filed pursuant to non-grant of pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 by the University, and the representation was rejected without considering their genuine claim and, therefore, the University is not entitled to take a stand that the case of the petitioners is covered by the earlier order of this Court. According to the learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta, the present claim of the petitioners arises out of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 14th July 1993 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, by which, it has been observed that, with regard to different controversy about the appellants acquiring position of Professors after 1.6.1972, the appellants can insist for redressal of their grievance for their legitimate claim and leaving that question open and granting liberty to the appellants to resort to an independent process. The learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta has further submitted that the present case is an off-shoot of the said observations and, therefore, appropriate directions are required to be given to the respondent-University to grant pay parity to the petitioners which is available to other teachers working on the post of Professors or its equivalent posts in the University. The learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta, has submitted that, though the petitioners might have been promoted initially on temporary post, yet, subsequently, they have been regularized by the respondent-University itself as per their say in the affidavit-in-reply and necessary order was passed by the University on 26.2.1978 and, therefore also, they are entitled to the claim of parity in the pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment on the post of Professors or equivalent posts. The learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta has further submitted that initial source of recruitment, qualification, nature of duties performed by the petitioners and the experience possessed by the petitioners are the same to that of the group of teachers who were given the benefit of pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 and working as Professor or its equivalent posts on 1.6.1972. Not only that, according to the learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta, the petitioners had subsequently appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee and, thereafter, acquired requisite criteria of obtaining Doctorate (Ph.D) and were regularized on the posts held by them by order dated 26th February 1978 and, therefore, there was no reason for the University to discriminate the petitioners and to give a hostile treatment ignoring their claim of parity in pay-scale.
5.1 The learned advocate Mr. A.H. Mehta, for the petitioners, has also invited the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners on 6th April 2002, whereby, at Annexure P/1, page 90, a letter dated 22nd November 1995 is produced, which is written by the Registrar of Gujarat Agricultural University to the Deputy Secretary for Agriculture, Cooperation and Rural Development Department of State of Gujarat, whereby, the case of the petitioners is strongly recommended for parity of pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 from the date of their promotions as per 5th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale. In the said letter, the Registrar has stated about the qualifications acquired by the petitioners and fulfilling all other relevant criteria and also about the fact that their services on promotional posts of Professor or equivalent posts have already been regularized by the University with effect from 1973-74, as the case may be, and, looking to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 14th July 1993 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, it was recommended that the petitioners be given pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 along with arrears of salary.
5.2 In support of his argument, learned advocate, Mr. A.H. Mehta, for the petitioners, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 541, and in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research vs. A.N. Lahiri, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2259. As per the said decisions, when the employees are working on the same posts performing similar nature of duties having equal qualification, they are required to be given same pay-scale. Therefore, in the present case also, appropriate directions are required to be given to the University for conferring benefits as claimed by the petitioners.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. J.R. Nanavati, appearing for the respondent No. 1-University, has mainly relied on the contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply and has justified the action of the University of not conferring or granting benefit of 5th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale available to the Professor or its equivalent posts, who were serving as such, as on 1st June 1972, since the petitioners were not working as Professor or its equivalent post, and they were working as Assistant Professors only. Mr. J.R. Nanavati has further submitted and justified the criteria of cut off date of 1.6.1972 for grant of pay-scale to the post of Professor or its equivalent in view of the policy decision taken by the Board Management where there was reshuffling in the academic staff, namely, teachers of the University and number of posts were converted. He has specifically pointed out paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-reply, by which, the University was justified to exercise such power available to the University under the Statute. Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that the claim of the petitioners is no more required to be agitated in view of the finality reached as per the order dated 14th July 1993 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, where rejection of Special Civil Application No. 1370 of 1981 was confirmed with certain observations. According to Mr. Nanavati, the only avenue open to the petitioners was to agitate their claim before the Competent Authority and the representation submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid order is also rejected by the University.
6.1 So far as the letter dated 22nd November 1995 written by the Registrar, Gujarat Agricultural University, to the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Cooperation & Rural Development Department, is concerned, Mr. J.R. Nanavati has, fairly, submitted that the University might have recommended the case of the petitioners for the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 as per 5th Five Year Plan UGC pay-scale, and it is for the State Authority to approve the same and to accord sanction. However, till today, it appears that no such decision is taken by the respondent-State.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, and having perused the record of the petition including affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in-rejoinder, it transpires that the recommendations of the Gujarat Agricultural University through its Registrar vide letter dated 22nd November 1995 to the Deputy Secretary, Agricultural, Cooperation & Rural Development Department, State of Gujarat, remain undecided by the State Government as on date. Prima facie, as per the recommendations made by the Gujarat Agricultural University through its Registrar vide letter dated 22nd November 1995, the claim of the petitioners appears to be well founded and justified in as much as all the petitioners have acquired requisite academic qualification and experience prescribed by the notification and they are Doctorates in the respective fields. All the petitioners, who were promoted to the post of Professors or its equivalent posts temporarily, after undergoing selection procedure before the Selection Committee, came to be, subsequently, regularized on the promotional post by order dated 26th February 1978.
8. So far as the claim of pay parity with the Professors of the University who were getting the pay-scale of Rs. 500-1250 as on 1st June 1972, is concerned, it was finally put to an end by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 14th July 1993, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, confirming the order of the learned single Judge dated 30th December 1992 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1370 of 1981. The only avenue, which was kept open and for which the liberty was given to the petitioner, was to resort to an independent process. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is, rightly, recommended by the Registrar of the Gujarat Agricultural University, by his letter dated 22nd November 1995, and, it is still awaiting sanction of the respondent No. 2, who was subsequently joined as party in the present proceeding by order dated 18th November 1995 passed by this Court. In view of the above, at this stage, it would be just and proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the recommendations of the Registrar of the Gujarat Agricultural University, by his letter dated 22nd November 1995, to consider the case of the petitioners for the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 from the date of their promotion to the post of Professor or its equivalent, in view of the fact that all the petitioners have undergone necessary formalities of appearing before the Selection Committee and even their temporary promotions have been regularised subsequently by order dated 26th February 1978.
9. Accordingly, in view of the observations of this Court in its order dated 14th July 1993, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275 of 1993, the respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the recommendations of the Registrar of the Gujarat Agricultural University, by his letter dated 22nd November 1995, to grant pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2500 to the petitioners from the date of their promotion to the post of Professor or its equivalent, along with arrears of salary, within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order of the Court and to convey the decision to the respondent No. 1-University forthwith.
10. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.