AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.—The Petitioners are teachers in non-Engineering subjects such as Chemistry, Physical Education, Mathematics etc., in the N.S.S. College of Engineering, Palghat.
The reliefs prayed for in the O.P. read as follows:
...pleased to call for, the records in connection with Exts. P-l to P-13 be called for, peruse and issue;
(a) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the Petitioners and all other non-engineering staff working in the Technical Education Department are entitled to get all service benefits such as protection in equal pay, promotion, retirement benefits etc., with those that are now granted to the Engineering Staff working in the Technical Education Department as order in terms of Ext. P-10 Pay Commission Report;
(b) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction directing the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P-12 in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity to the concerned affected associations;
(c) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts. P-11and P-13 orders passed by the 3rd Respondent and grant him the benefits of the new pay scale applicable to Junior Lecturer in Ext. P-10 Pay Revision Order ;
(d) any other writ, direction or order which may just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Their grievance, discernible from the pleadings in the O.P., can be stated thus: Until the year 1978, the year in which Ext. P-6, the order of the Government, accepting the recommendations of the Third Kerala Pay Commission was passed, the teachers in the non-Engineering subjects in private Engineering Colleges were treated on a par with the teachers in Engineering subjects. But this system was given the go-by and they thereafter are being treated differently from the teachers in the Engineering subjects as far as their pay scale is concerned. This treatment meted out to them is discriminatory and hence appropriate directions be issued to the Government to treat them on a par with the teachers in the Engineering subjects so far as the pay scale, the said teachers are enjoying as per the Third Pay Commission. To substantiate the above contention the learned Counsel made reference to Ext. P-12 representation (Ext. P-12 is the representation which was considered and disposed of by the Government by Ext. P-13 order) particularly to paragraphs 1 to 4 thereof. They read:
The staff of Engineering Colleges (including non-Engineering Teaching Staff) work from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on all working days whereas staff of the Arts and Science Colleges work from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. only on all working days. Moreover, a teacher in Engineering College has (in addition to regular teaching works) to periodically value tests and assignments, based on which sessional marks have to be worked out. This is a special work which does not exist in Arts and Science Colleges.
The number of teachers in each of the Science Department is very few, as per work load of the University and hence promotion possibilities are highly restricted whereas, the promotion possibility of a teacher in the Arts and Science College is much more favourable because of the large number of teachers in each department.
The parity of scales of pay between teachers in non-Engineering Departments exist in Indian Institutes of Technology, Regional Engineering Colleges and also in Engineering Colleges in other States.
The learned Government Pleader Sri Jayakumar on Course takes 4 years, but to get a Master Degree in Science and Art subjects one has to study for 5 years. With a B.Sc. E. Degree in Engineering one joins as Lecturer in Engineering subject whereas a person can join as Lecturer in Science subject only with a Master''s Degree in the respective subject.
The learned Government Pleader Sri Jayakumar on the other hand contends that no doubt, there is a classification but the said classification cannot be said to be unreasonable and discriminatory. This classification was justified, the learned Government Pleader submits, in view of the University Order, Ext. P-l. A specific reference in this connection to Clauses (i) and (ii) of Ext. P-1 is relevant. They are:
(i) The qualifications and method of recruitment for teachers for non-engineering subjects like Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Economics and Physical education shall be the same as for the corresponding staff of the Arts and Science Colleges as recommended by the Faculty of Engineering.
(ii) The work load of the above category of staff shall be the same as for their counter-parts in the Arts and Science Colleges.
Touching upon this aspect this is what is stated in the counter affidavits of the first Respondent:
The qualifications and method of recruitment for teachers in non-Engineering subjects are the same as for the corresponding posts in the Arts and Science Colleges. The above fact is clear from Ext. P-1 order dated 14th March 1980 issued by the University of Kerala.
The scale of pay of non-engineering teachers in Private Engineering Colleges are the same as those of the corresponding posts in Arts and Science Colleges.
Yet another reason stated in this connection is that the Government had to adopt a general policy of giving ''higher scale of pay to those persons to attract more qualified hands to the field of teaching Engineering subjects''. The question thus arising for consideration is: Whether the Petitioners are also entitled to get the same pay scale the teachers teaching Engineering subjects are entitled to, applying the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Before we go into this question it is better to keep in mind the dictum, the Supreme Court has laid down in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others Vs. Union of India and others, The dictum reads:
Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal, pay must depend upon the nature of the work done, it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scale of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right.
In this case admittedly there is differentiation. But the question is whether this differentiation will amount to discrimination. The object sought to be achieved in making this differentiation is to attract more qualified hands to the field of teaching Engineering subjects. Unless such persons are paid well, it is unlikely that the institutions will get the service of qualified persons. May be that the difference in the discharge of duties is only a matter of degree as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. May be that the same committee is selecting candidates for being appointed as teachers teaching Engineering subjects as also teachers teaching non-Engineering subjects. That does not however, mean that those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scale of pay has acted arbitrarily if one is to keep in view the object sought to be achieved. To put it differently it cannot be said that the authority concerned acted unreasonably in fixing a higher scale of pay to the teachers teaching engineering subjects. It should in this connection be remembered that the problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a Mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as observed by the Supreme Court, ''a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived at mala fide either in law or in fact''. It is important always to remember that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14. I therefore may not be justified. If I am to say that the differentiation has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely to get proper hands to teach the Engineering subjects.
There is yet another aspect that should be borne in mind while considering the question as to whether the reliefs prayed for can be granted. Ext. P-l, which prescribes the method of selection to fill the post of teachers in non-Engineering subjects, the Petitioners have accepted. Similarly the Petitioners have accepted the benefit, their counter parts are getting in the Arts and Science Colleges. A reference in this connection to Ext. P-3 is profitable. Ext. P-3 reads:
In the Government Order read above, orders were issued extending principle of non-cadre promotion as obtaining for the teaching staff of Arts and Science Colleges to the teaching staff in the Technical Education Department and Medical Colleges also. Since Government have accepted the principle of parity, of scale of pay and other conditions of service of the staff in Government Engineering College/Polytechnics and the Private Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics it is hereby ordered that the benefit of non-cadre promotion ordered in the Government Order read above shall be extended to the teaching stall of Private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics also on the same terms and conditions as are applicable in the case of teaching start in the Technical Education Department.
Having accepted all these benefits the Petitioners cannot turn round and say that the parity in pay scale alone shall not be there.
The O.P. for the reason stated above is dismissed. No costs.