SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
Prof. C. D. Tase, Appellant
Versus
University of Bombay and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 785 of 1988
Decided on 16-2-1989.
Advocates appeared
Appellant in person; Dr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate and Mr. V. B. Joshi Advocate, with him, for Respondents.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appellant joined college run by Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane lecturer in the pay-scale of prescribed by University Grants Commission pursuant to the recommendations made by Second Pay Commission – litigation – Subsequent – Inequitable - By Government Resolution Government of Maharashtra had accepted in principle Government of India scheme based on recommendations of University Grants Commission for improvement of salary scales of University teachers and teachers in affiliated Arts, Science, Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges – Accordingly Government of Maharashtra directed all Universities in State to implement pay scales recommended by Commission scales recommended were to take effect scales were recommended for lecturers – Held, University to deny such placement to appellant and his companions but it is obvious that if they had been granted placement on due dates they would have been entitled to higher salary and allowances related to basic salary dearness allowance which is a certain percentage of basic salary would have gone addition they would have earned increments by time they became entitled to revised scale is obvious that decision of University not only appears to be inequitable but also discriminatory inasmuch as it sought to treat equals as unequals by protecting those who had secured placement and denying same to others whose names college managements had failed to forward in good time – Impugned order of High Court respondents to grant benefit of placement in higher appellant from he became entitled to fix his pay in revised scale of appellant will be entitled to monetary benefit accruing to him on implementation of above directive which should be worked out and paid to him appellant will also be entitled to cost from University of Bombay – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
AHMADI, J. :— This is an appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 6th March, 1987 in Writ Petn. No. 1166 of 1981.
2. The appellant, C. D. Tase, joined the college run by Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Thane, on June 15, 1971 as a lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-25-600 prescribed by the University Grants Commission pursuant to the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission. By Government Resolution No. USG 1167-U dated November 6, 1967, the Government of Maharashtra had accepted in principle the Government of India scheme based on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission for improvement of salary scales of University teachers and teachers in affiliated Arts, Science, Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges. Accordingly, the Government of Maharashtra directed all the Universities in the State to implement the pay scales recommended by the Commission. The scales recommended were to take effect from April 1, 1966. Three scales were recommended for lecturers, namely, Rs. 300-25-600 (Lecturers, Junior Scale), Rs. 400-30-640-40-800 (Lecturers, Senior Scale) and Rs. 700-40- 1100 ,(Senior Lecturers). The Universities in turn directed colleges affiliated to them to implement the recommendations accepted by the State of Maharashtra. The appellants college was at the material time affiliated to the University of Pune. The Additional. Director of Education, Maharashtra State by his letter No. S-95/127-A dated January 18, 1968 addressed to the Principals of non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce and S.T. Colleges in the State directed the colleges to implement the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission as approved by the State of Maharashtra. The University in turn by its letter No. PU/Stat/ F. 3/A/6768/236 dated February 7, 1968 directed the Principals of all colleges to implement the new pay-scales with effect from April 1, 1966. Thus, in the category of lecturers (excluding Principals) three scales as stated above were prescribed subject to the condition that the number of senior lecturers and lecturers, senior scale, was not to exceed 1/4th of the total strength of lecturers. It was left to the Universities to formulate norms which the lecturers must satisfy for being considered for the posts of senior lecturers and/or lecturers, senior scale, as the case may be. The High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant and his two companions, Writ Petn. No. 1166 of 1981 observed :
"There does not appear to be much dispute that if the report of the Second Pay Commission of University Grants Commission was implemented in letter and spirit, the petitioners would have respectively. qualified for the category of Senior Lecturers in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-40-1100 on 2nd March, 1974, 15th June, 1974 and. 15th June, 1975 respectively.
It is evident from the above observation of the High Court that the appellant was entitled to placement in the senior scale of Rs. 700-40-1100 with effect from June 15, 1975.
3. In the meantime, sometime in 1978, a decision was taken to implement the Third Pay Commission Report prescribing a running scale of Rs. 700-1600 for teachers with effect from January 1, 1973. All the Universities in the State were directed to implement the new scale of Rs. 700-1600 prescribed for senior lecturers. This raised the question whether placement of teachers already made after January 1, 1973 in the higher pre-1973 scales would be valid on the implementation of the revised scale w.e.f. January 1, 1973. By Government Resolution No. USG. 1178/24585/XXXII (Cell) dated June 27, 1978, it was clarified that placement of teachers made in one of the higher pre1973 scales of 400-800 and Rs. 700-1100 on or after January 1, 1973 would be considered valid and protected subject to the prescribed conditions. The High Court points out that if the above clarification is accepted as correct the appellant would be enti
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.