Dr. R.R. Gupta and Others vs State of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed by 66 persons who are working as Professors/Associate Professor in various Departments of the University of Rajasthan details where of have been given in Schedule-A filed with the petition and it is not necessary to mention them here.

All the petitioners were appointed as Teachers in the cadres of Lecturers in the University of Rajasthan in different Departments The source of recruitment for Teachers in the University of Rajasthan was direct recruitment from open market till 15-11-1984 as per the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974. Persons who were appointed at particular posts used to continue on those particular posts for number of years for various reasons and they remained stagnant for a pretty long time. Realising this, and to avoid frustration among the teaching community, the Act of 1974 was amended by Amending Act No. 18 of 1984 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, vide notification dated 15-11-1984, by which new Section 11 was added which provided for personal promotion against ex-cadre posts. It has been mentioned in Section 11 that Lecturers (Assistant Professor) were eligible for promotion to the post of Reader (Associate Professor after having rendered minimum 15 years of service or 12 years service with the qualification laid down by the University and such promotions were required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, where as Readers (Associate Professors) were eligible for promotion on the basis of merit alone. Such promotions could be given to a person only once u/s 11. Most of the petitioners were promoted under the Scheme of this Section 11. Soon thereafter, direct recruitment was also made and most of the petitioners had not availed of the opportunity as they has already been appointed as per Section 11 added in 1984. The petitioners have mentioned a typical example of Dr. H L. Agrawal who had been appointed as a Professor in the Department of Statistics vide order dated 20th October, 1987 in pursuance of the Scheme envisaged u/s 11. He was called upon to act as the member of the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in Statistics, whereas he was also asked to appear for the interview for the post of Professor in Statistics.

The University Grants Commission revised the pay scales of various teachers in different Universities of the country w.e.f. 1-1-1986 providing the revised pay scales as under:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Name of the Post Existing Pay Scales Revised Pay Scales -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Professor 1500-2500 4500-150-5700-200-7300 (2) Reader (Associate 1200-1900 3700-125-4950-150-5700 Professor) (3) Lecturer (Assistant 700-1600 (i) 2200-75-2800-100-4000 Professor) [Ordinary Pay Scale] (ii) 3000-100-3500-125-5000 [Senior Pay Scale] (iii) 3700-125-4950150-5700 [Selection Pay Scale] --------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Government of Rajasthan also accepted the said pay scales and conveyed the sanction of the Governor for revision of the scales of pay of various teachers of different Universities in Rajasthan w.e.f. 1-1-1986 vide letter dated 3 6-1988 (Annx. 2). Another letter was issued on 25-6-1981 (Annx. 3) in partial modification of the earlier letter dated 3-6-1988 (Annx. 2) substituting sub-para (vii) as under:

(vii) The existing teachers in the University will have an option to continue to be governed by the provisions of the ''Excadre Promotion Scheme" contained in the Rajasthan Universities'' Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 provided that they exercise that option in writing within two months of the date of issue of the order revising the scales of pay. Those who opt for the "Ex-cadre Promotion Scheme'' will also be entitled to the designation envisaged for various categories of teachers in the scheme, but the scales of pay will be as follows:

Reader: 3000100-3500-125-5000

4500-150-5700

In continuation of these two letters, still another letter was issued on 7-7-1988 clarifying that the Readers and the Professors promoted under ex-cadre scheme prior to 1-11986 will be only allowed the grades of 3700-5700 and 4500 7500 respectively. The Readers and the Professors promoted under ex-cadre scheme on or after 1-1-1986 will be placed in grades of 3000-5000 and 4500 5700 respectively, provided they opt for the continuing on promoted post as per ex-cadre scheme.

The net result of there three communications is that those persons who have been appointed as Professors and Associated Professor under the ex-cadre promotion scheme, will not be entitled to the new pay scales of University Grants Commission incase such promotions have been made on or after 1-1-1986 and the cadre of Professors and Associate Professors are divided into two categories (1) consisting of those appointed by direct recruitment and the other (ii) consisting of those appointed by promotion. Among the promotees it makes a further sub-Division those promoted before 1-1-1986 are entitled to the same pay scale as the direct recruits but those promoted on or after 1-1-1986 are given lower pay scales. Several representations were made by different teachers including some of the petitioners for removal of this anomaly but with no result. Hence, this petition has been filed, seeking to declare the action of the Government as discriminatory being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Article 39 of the Constitution. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on 27-7-1988. Notice were issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Notices were served in earlier part of September, 1988. When the case came up before the court, six weeks'' time was granted to the State Government to file reply on 23-9 1988 but no reply was filed and when the case again came on 7-11-1988 before this Court, three week''s time was further granted to file reply and in case the reply was still not filed, it would be presumed that the State will have no objection in accepting this petition. Still, reply was not filed and when the case again came up before us on 30-11-1988, two week''s time was granted to file reply but the reply was to be taken on record only after payment of a cost of Rs. 300/- to the petitioner. Thereupon, an application was filed by the petitioners that since the last date to exercise their option for revised pay scales was 11-12 1988, the case may be listed for orders in court prior to 11-12-1988. A copy of the application was served upon learned Counsel for the State. This application was allowed by this Court on 5-12-1988 in the presence of learned Counsel for the State and the case was fixed for 9-12-1988. Even today, reply has not been filed. Learned Counsel for the State still prays for some time to file the reply but that was opposed by learned Counsel for the petitioners and therefore, no further time was granted. Arguments were heard and record has been perused.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Jaipal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. All the teachers belonging to one particular category i.e. Associate Professor or Professors, constitute one class Their work is identical. Their duties are identical. Their duty hours are also the same. Their designation is same. They are supposed to teach the classes as per the time table. They are supposed to teach same students with same subjects, and also to act as guides for research work without any distinction, whether they are promotees under ex cadre promotion scheme or direct recruits appointed by direct recruitment from open market irrespective of the fact whether they were appointed on 1-1-1986 or after 1-1-1986. Persons who had been promoted under the ex-cadre promotion scheme could not have envisaged or thought that the Government at the later point of time will pass such orders distinguishing between the direct recruits and promotess under ex-cadre promotion scheme and therefore, they did not think it necessary or proper to opt and appear at the time of selection as direct recruits from open market. If they had known it earlier, they would have certainly offered themselves for selection by way of direct recruitment. All the Professors and the Associate Professors working in the Universities in Rajasthan are similarly situated with reference to their status, designation, nature of work, quantum of work, quality of work, duty they have to perform and therefore, source of recruitment does not make them non-distinct or different in any manner, what so ever. They all teach to the same set of students and there is no distinction between the promotees or direct recruits Under Article 39 contained in Part-IV of the Constitution of India, the State has to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both the men and women. Though Article 39 is included in Chapter of directive principles of State Policy but it is fundamental in nature. Its purpose is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. For the two classes of persons doing same work under the same employer with similar responsibilities under similar working conditions, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply and no discrimination can be allowed and the Government cannot discriminate one class with other in paying different pay scales. The State is under a constitutional obligations to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. No artificial discrimination can be allowed to be made in the manner it has been done in the present case. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jaipal''s case (supra) have very emphatically held that difference in mode of selection will not effect the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work for both the classes of persons doing similar functions and duties under the same employer. In the present case, it is not disputed nor it can be disputed that the Professors and the Associate Professors appointed on promotion under the ex-cadre promotion scheme or selected by direct recruitment work under one employer, University of Rajasthan and performing similar work under similar conditions. Their nature of duties and functions being the same, are entitled to the same pay scales whether they are direct recruits or promoted on the basis of ex-cadre promotion scheme.

In the result, we allow this Writ Petition and quash the directions issued by the State Govt. vide latter dated 3-6-1988 (Annexure-2), letter dated 25-6-1988 (Annex. 3) and letter dared 7-7-1988 (Annexure-4) in this regard, causing discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39 of the Constitution of India. We further hold that all the Associate Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and the Professors are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7300 as granted by the University Grants Commission.

No order as to costs.