Judgment

N.M.KASLIWAL, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) AS identical questions of law are raised in all the above appeals, the same are disposed of by one common order. In all these appeals the question arising for consideration is whether the respondents who were Workshop Superintendents in the various Engineering Colleges or the government Polytechnics under the State government were entitled to UGC scales of pay.

(3) ONE Baijnath Gupta who was Workshop Superintendent at one of the government Polytechnic Institutes filed a writ petition claiming inter alia that he being a teaching employee was entitled to UGC pay scale. The said writ petition was allowed in part and thereafter he filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1987 before the division bench of the High court. The High court decided the said letters patent appeal by order dated 19/01/1990 and held that the appellant Baijnath Gupta was a teaching employee of government Polytechnic and the State government had decided to implement UGC pay scale to the teaching employees of Polytechnics and Engineering Colleges, and as such, the appellants case was on par with them. The High court also placed reliance in this regard on the earlier two decisions of that court and held that the appellant was entitled to UGC pay scale, i.e. Rs. 1200-1900 with effect from 1/04/1973.

(4) THE State of Bihar filed a Special Leave Petition No. 4639 of 1991 before this court against the aforesaid order of the High court in Baijnath Guptas case and the same was dismissed by order dated 8/03/1991 on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay. As the application for condonation of delay had been dismissed, as such the special leave petition was also dismissed. Thereafter representations were filed by Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation before the State Government to grant UGC scale with effect from 1/04/1973 and other consequential benefits. The State government by order dated 8/04/1991 rejected the representations. Some of the Workshop Superintendents individually as well as the Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation filed writ petitions in the High court claiming the UGC scale and all those writ petitions have been allowed by the High court and the order of the government dated 8/04/1991 rejecting the representations has been quashed. All the above appeals have now been filed by the State of Bihar against the orders of the High court dated 6/09/1991, September 19, 1991 and 31/07/1991.

(5) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant - State government that the Special Leave Petition No. 4639 of 1991 filed against the judgment of the High court in Baijnath Guptas case was not decided on merits, but was dismissed on the ground of delay and as such the said decision cannot be a precedent and the State government was entitled to challenge the orders of the High court on merits. It was also submitted that the post of Workshop Superintendent was not a teaching post and as such there was no question of granting UGC scale of pay which could only be made applicable to a member of the teaching staff employed in a College run by the University. It was also submitted that the All India council for Technical Education (in short AICT) had also taken the stand that the Workshop Superintendent was not a teaching post. It was also submitted in this regard by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents were not engineering graduates, but only diploma holders and were not qualified to be appointed for any teaching post.

(6) ON the other hand Mr Sibal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the All India council for Technical Education has now shifted its stand with regard to the posts of Workshop Superintendents and other similar posts in engineering colleges offering degree courses and in Polytechnics offering diploma courses not only as regards their pay scales but also as