IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that Computer Programmers do not qualify for the same pay scale as Lecturers, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work must consider qualifications and duties.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present appeal filed by the State under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the common judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6191 of 2003 and allied matters, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-employees by quashing and setting aside the Reports of the Expert Committees of the year 2003 and 2018. The learned Single Judge has further recorded that the original-petitioners are entitled to the payscale of Lecturers teaching Computer Science with effect from 01.01.1996 and the arrears.

2. Since the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 by taking up the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6191 of 2003 as a lead matter, we are accordingly examining the facts and law.

3. The issue raised in the present appeal pertains to the demand of “Computer Programmers” demanding the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000/- with effect from 01.01.1986 by considering them as “teaching staff of the respective colleges”, which are affiliated to the respondent No.3 – Gujarat University. Thus, the issue is premised on the doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work.”

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, at the outset, has pointed out the Expert Committee Report dated 14.08.2018 and has submitted that the Committee has taken care of all the aspects and ultimately, it was found that the respondents who are/were working as “Computer Programmers” are not entitled to the equal pay to that of “teaching staff of the respective Colleges”. It is submitted that the Committee was constituted for examining this aspect and ultimately, the Committee comprising four Members including the Vice-Chancellor of University has opined that the respondent – Computer Programmers are not entitled to the equal pay to that of such teaching staff. It is submitted that various aspects are considered by the Committee and hence, as per the judgments of the Supreme Court, on which the reliance was placed on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the writ petitions. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in quashing and setting aside the reports of the Committee and has further erred in issuing directions conferring the equal pay of Lecturers in Computer Science with effect from 01.01.1996 to the respondents. Thus, it is urged that as per the settled legal precedents, the impugned judgment and order may be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.J.A. Adeshra, appearing on behalf of the respondent – employees has submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered various documentary evidence, as referred in paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment, which would show that the respondents are in fact, imparting education and appointed as “Computer Programmers” and hence, they can be treated at par with the “teaching staff”. He has referred to the various documents. Learned advocate Mr.Adeshra, has further submitted that the appointment of all the respondents was approved by the University and hence, they cannot be denied the pay-scale, which has been extended to the members of teaching staff of the respective colleges since they are also teaching the subject of Computer Science. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be set aside.

7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The sole issue involved in the present appeal is that whether the respondents, who were appointed as “Computer Programmers” in the respective Colleges affiliated to Gujarat University can be extended the same pay scale to that of the “Lecturers” or not, on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

9. Before delving into the issue, it would be apposite to refer to the earlier round of litigatio