Sureshkumar Mohanlal Solanki vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:

20(B) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents declaring that the petitioner is lecturer and he is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 as per Mehrotra Pay Commission and further direct the respondent authorities to pay pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 or the date on which he has become entitled for the same and pay arrears with interest @ 12% and give all consequential benefit is to the petitioner considering him as lecturer from the initial date of his appointment.

(C) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents directing the respondents to give benefit of the revised pay scale as per Rastogi Pay Commission to the petitioner by revising the petitioner''s pay scale from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1996 as per Mehrotra Commission and subsequently revise the same in the Rastogi pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and pay him the difference forthwith.

(D) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents declaring the Government resolution dated 3.8.1998 as illegal and discriminatory and quash the same.

During the course of hearing, it is submitted by Mr. J.P. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Mukund Desai for the petitioner, that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court (Coram: K.M. Mehta, J) rendered on 03rd November 2001 in the case Ketankumar Manharlal Shah v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 8021 of 1998 and, therefore, in view of the same, the present petition is required to be disposed of.

It would be beneficial to reproduce the above cited decision as under:

Ketankumar Manharlal Shah the petitioner has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction against the respondents declaring that the petitioner is a lecturer and is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 as per the recommendations of Malhotra Pay Commission and further directing the respondent authorities to pay the pay scale of Rs 2200-4000 to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986 or the date on which he has become entitled for the same and pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% and give all consequential benefits to the petitioner considering him as lecturer from the initial date of his appointment. He has further prayed for a direction against the respondents directing the respondents to give benefit of the revised pay scale as per the Rastogi Pay Commission to the petitioner by revising the petitioner''s pay scale from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1996 as per Mehrotra Commission and subsequently revised the same in the Rastogi pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 and pay him the difference forthwith. He has also prayed for a direction against the respondent declaring the "Government Resolution dated 3.8.1998 as illegal and discriminatory and quashing the same.

This petition has been filed somewhere on 14.9.1998.

When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 28.9.1999 this Court (Coram: K.R. Vyas.J) issued notice making it returnable on 12.10.1998. Thereafter this Court (R.M. Deshit. J) issued Rule on 22.3.1999 but interim relief was refused.

Today the matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned advocates of both the sides.

I have gone through the averments and submissions made in the petition including the grounds set out therein in this behalf. The lecturers are imparting education in colleges. They are serving as computer programmers also. The petitioner is serving with the respondent no.3 College as a Computer Programmer and is possessing requisite qualification for appointment of lecturer and is serving with the respondent college since last so many years. It is submitted the then Vice Chancellor appointed one committee and the Committee by its recommendations dated 11.6.1984 recommended for the Introduction of computer subject as optional subject with effect from academic year starting from June 1984 and in order to teach subject qualification as well as syllabus was laid down in the meeting of academic council of the Gujarat University dated 22.6.1984. Accordingly said subject was included in the syllabus of the University. The petitioner was therefore, teaching computer as a subject in the college. The petitioner and other programmers have formed Gujarat University Affiliated Colleges Computer ''Teaching Staff Association and has made representation to the authorities concerned jointly as well as individually to treat them as lectureers with effect from 1.1.1986 or from their initial date of appointment i.e. when the subject was introduced in the syllabus of the Universities of Gujarat from academic year 1984 onwards.

Some where in June 1984 the Academic Council in its meeting has laid down the criteria for the post of programmers which are equivalent to the post of lecturers. It was further stated that from 1.1.1986 all the employees working in the Government, Semi Government and Colleges etc. were given new pay scale and the lecturers pay scale was revised from Rs.700-1600 to Rs.2200-4000 but the teachers of the computer subject were denied the revision of pay nor they were given senior scale or selection grade after 8 years or 16 years respectively.

It has been further submitted that one Anil H. Contractor who has approached the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal by way of Application NO.122 of 1992 wherein the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500.

It may be note here that this decision has not been challenged by the concerned authorities but the same has been accepted by the University as well as the Government in this behalf.

Somewhere in April 1991 the Gujarat University has recommended the pay scale of Computer Science Programmer.

It may be noted that on 23.9.1991 the Academic Council accepted the recommendations and accepted to treat the programmer as lecturer but the pay scale suggested is Rs. 2000-3500 in this behalf.

Mr.Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without going into the merits of the matter if this Court directs the Government to constitute a Committee and if that Committee consider the grievances of the petitioner, the matter can be disposed of accordingly.

11.A It has been further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that even the Physical Instructor who is looking after sports and other activities in the college was also treated as lecturer eventhough he is not discharging any teaching activity his post has been equated with the post of lecturer and he has given pay scale of lecturer with all other consequential benefits.

11.B Learned advocate further submitted that the Government has already revised the pay scales of librarian and physical training instructors of arts, science, commerce and education colleges w.e.f. 1.4.80 which has been produced at Annexure `M'' to the petition where the Government Resolution dated 19.12.1983 has been referred where the pay scale of librarian and physical training have been shown in this behalf.

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocate for petitioner and in view of the fact that this matter is of 1998 and ordinarily the matter will be taken up for hearing after 10 years by that time several employees may retire and some of the persons may die to that extent the petition become infructuous. In view of this situation, this Court is of the view that, the matter may be disposed of by giving some suitable directions to the Government in this behalf in the interest of justice. However, it may be noted at this stage that this Court has not considered anything on the merits of the matter either the contentions of the petitioner or of the Government. The learned AGP has also tried to support the order of the Government from time to time.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, if following directions are given the same may be in the interest of justice.

(1) The Government will constitute a Committee consisting (1) Secretary Finance Department, (2) Secretary Legal Department, (3) Secretary Education Department and (4) Vice-Chancellor of relevant Universities and that Committee will consider the contents of the [petitioner which has been raised in the petition and entire record of the petition will be treated as representation of the petitioner. Over and above if petitioner desire to file additional submission then it will be open for her to file written submission within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.

(2) After the Committee received such representation, the Committee will afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner the Committee will adjudicate the demand of the petitioner and the Committee will consider including the copy of the writ petition and the contentions raised there in and all the papers which have been submitted including the judgment of the tribunal which has been referred by the petitioner in this behalf.

(2.A) The Committee will also afford an opportunity of being heard to association of the teachers.

(3) The Committee will pass a short but speaking order in this behalf within four weeks from the date of receipt of said representation.

(4) The petitioner will make representation by 31st December, 2001, and the Committee will decide the said representation preferably by 28th February, 2002.

I have adopted this course only because High Court is flooded with the work and ordinarily this is of 1998 matter and therefore this matter will not be heard by this Court in near future because it will take about 8 to 10 years and for that time some of the employees may retire or some of the persons may die and further this petition relates to the pay scale of the petitioner and important question involved in this behalf and the contention raised by the petitioner is also based upon the question of fact and therefore the Committee will be best who can decide the pay scale of the petitioner in this behalf.

In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged in the aforesaid terms.

In view of aforesaid, when the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by this Court by way of above cited decision, in light of the same the present petition is required to be disposed of and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Further when petition relates to the pay scale of the petitioner and important question involved in this behalf and the contention raised by the petitioner is also based upon the question of fact and therefore the Committee as indicated in the captioned decision will be best who can decide the pay scale of the petitioner in this behalf. The parties to abide by the above cited decision. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.