Satish Chandra Sinha vs Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi &Ors.

D. S. Sinha and O.P. Jain, JJ.—Heard Sri VK. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Neither the Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 nor the Counsel of respondent No. 3 is present, though the case has been taken up on revision of the cause list.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner urges this Court to quash the order dated 18th January, 1992 passed by the relevant University Authority. A copy of this order is to be found on record as Annexure6 to the writ petition. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent University Authority and the University Grants Commission, the respondent No. 3, be commanded to grant him the revision of payscale at the rate of Rs. 400 to 950 with effect from 1st March, 1968 and Rs. 700 to 1600 with effect from 1st March, 1973 alongwith other consequential benefits. The petitioner also prays that the respondents be directed to pay the arrears becoming due on revision of the payscale and refixation of the pay.

By the impugned order the University Authority has declined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for revision of payscale on the ground that the revision of payscale required approval and sanction of the University Grants Commission, the respondent No. 3 and in the absence of such approval and sanction, it was unable to accede to the request for revision of payscale.

On 11th August, 1967, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Livestock Farm Manager, a post created in the respondentUniversity by the University Grants Commission under IllFive Year Plan. The petitioner joined the post on 9th September, 1967 and continued on the post till 1984, when he was appointed as Lecturer. After serving on the post of Livestock Farm Manager for about four years, the petitioner started making representation to the authorities for revision of his payscale with effect from 1st March, 1968 on the ground that the payscale of certain other employees of the University had been revised. The University authorities considered the representations of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the University Grants Commission for requisite approval and sanction. From a perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the University Grants Commission did not accede to the request of the petitioner and the recommendation and the proposal of the University with regard to the revision of payscale. It further transpires that the order impugned herein was passed in pursuance of the direction of this Court given in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9642 of 1986, filed by the petitioner and disposed of on 5th September, 1991. The direction contained in the order of the Court dated 5th September, 1991 reads as follows:

"The petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi that, if the petitioner submits a representation to it for revision of his pay scale, the same may be considered by it and disposed of within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order together with the representation is submitted before the Registrar of the University."

The order impugned in this petition was passed on representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of the above direction of this Court.

It is contended that as the payscales of the Press Manager, Engineers of Electric and Water Works, Dairy Superintendent, Farm Superintendent, Technical Assistant etc. were revised by the University, the petitioner was also entitled for the revision of his payscale. In substance, the petitioner claims parity with the other employees whose payscales were revised.

Obviously, the nature of work and duties of Press Manager, Engineer of Electrical and Water Works, Dairy Superintendent, Farm Superintendent, Technical Assistant etc., serving with the respondentUniversity, are quite different than the nature of work and duties of Livestock Farm Manager. No parity or equality can be claimed by the Livestock Farm Manager with the aforesaid employees. Apart from this, the question as to which post shall carry what payscale is a matter of policy to be decided by the relevant authority and not by this Court. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim revision of the payscale as a matter of right. No legally cognizable and judicially enforceable right of the petitioner in this regard has been brought to the notice of the Court.

The view of the University Authorities that the petitioner was not legally entitled to claim the revised payscale and the same could not be granted in the absence of the approval and sanction by the University Grants Commission has not been demonstrated to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, the matter with regard to the grant of the prayer of the petitioner for revision of the payscale having already been considered and turned down by the University Grants Commission should not be allowed to be reagitated.

On the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Court is of the opinion that the petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed summarily. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.