Back
1996 Supreme(All) 564
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash, J.S.Sidhu
RADHEY SHYAM BHATTA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 09 May 1996
Civil Misc. W. P No. 5327 of 1982
R.C.MISHRA,
The principle of equal pay for equal work is not abstract and does not apply mechanically in every case of similar work. It must be read in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, which permits reasonable classification based on relevant factors. In the context of employment, classification can be based on qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of the posts concerned.
Headnote:
INSTRUCTORS - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY STATUTES - CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHERS - QUALIFICATIONS AND MODE OF RECRUITMENT - PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - APPLICABILITY - DISCRIMINATION - PHYSICAL TRAINING INSTRUCTORS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, appointed as Instructors in the Department of Fine Arts (Painting) at Allahabad University, sought equal pay with Lecturers, claiming they performed similar duties. The University and State Government opposed the claim, arguing that Instructors and Lecturers belonged to different categories with distinct qualifications, recruitment modes, and service conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners, as Instructors, did not belong to the same rank and cadre as Lecturers. Their qualifications, mode of recruitment, and service conditions were materially different. While Instructors possessed a diploma in painting, Lecturers required a doctorate or equivalent research work and a consistently good academic record. The Court emphasized that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not abstract and that the State can prescribe different pay scales for different posts based on qualifications, duties, and responsibilities.
Issues: 1. Whether Instructors and Lecturers belong to the same rank and cadre, entitling Instructors to equal pay with Lecturers under the principle of equal pay for equal work. 2. Whether the petitioners were illegally discriminated against compared to Physical Training Instructors who were granted Lecturer status.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Allahabad University Statutes, which classified teachers into three categories: Professor, Reader, and Lecturer. Instructors were not included in this classification. The Court also noted that the qualifications and mode of recruitment for Instructors and Lecturers were different, as prescribed by the Statutes. 2. The Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not mechanically applicable in every case of similar work. It must be read in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, which permits reasonable classification based on relevant factors. In this case, the classification of Instructors and Lecturers was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the objective of maintaining efficiency in administration. 3. The Court further held that the petitioners failed to establish that they were similarly situated to Physical Training Instructors who were granted Lecturer status. The petitioners did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that both classes of Instructors were similarly situated, and the mere fact of having the same designation was not enough.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to equal pay with Lecturers. The interim orders granting the petitioners Lecturer emoluments and designation were vacated, subject to certain conditions. Petitioners who had become Lecturers during the pendency of the petition were allowed to continue as Lecturers and receive emoluments from the date of their appointment, but they were required to refund any excess payments received under the interim orders.
There are two sets of petitioners represented by separate counsel. This petition was filed by five petitioners who in the begin ning were represented by Sri Yogesh Agrawal. Later Sri Yogesh Agrawal stated his Vakalatnama be treated to have been filed only for petitioners No. 2 and 4, when Sri R. C. Shukla filed Vakalatnana for petitioners No. 3 and 5. Petitioner No. 1 died during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, only the remaining writ petitioners are prosecuting the writ petition.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Instructors in the Department of Fine Arts which has two branches; (1) Music and (2) Paint ing. Whereas, there was degree course in Music, only diploma course was there till 1977 in painting. All the petitioners were appointed as Instruc tors in the Fine Arts (Painting) Department on various dates. In short, the case of the petitioners is that they discharged duties and functions of Lec turers in the Fine Arts (Painting) Department and, therefore, they are entitl ed to the emoluments payable to a Lecturer. It is averred that a resolution dated 27-3-1974 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) was passed by the Univer sity in the following words :
"resolved that the post of all the eight Instructors in the Depart ment of Fine Arts be converted into the post of Lecturers and all the confirmed incumbents working against these posts be designated as Lecturers. "
Such a resolution was not approved by the State Government as appears from the impugned review order dated 15-3-1982 (Annexure4 to the counter-affidavit) rejecting the resolution passed by the University.
3. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of U. P. and the University. In the counter- affidavit filed for the State of U. P. , it is averred that under clause 10-01, Chapter X of the Statutes of the University, there are only three categories of teachers, namely (1) Professor, (2) Reader and (3) Lecturer and that Instructors are not included in the classification of teachers and, therefore, they are not entitled to the emolu ments of Lecturers. It is also stated that the grade of the Lecturers and of Instructor and their mode of recruitment are different. It is averred that under clause 10. 04 of the Statute, the Instructors and Teaching Research Assistants fall in a separate category. It is also stated that the resolution passed by the University can become operative only when it is approved by the State Government and that the resolution was not approv ed by the State Government as there was no provision under the Statutes of the Allahabad University for converting the post of Instructors into the post of Lecturers.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, it is denied that the petitioners have a legal right to be posted as Lecturers and to claim salary of the cadre of the Lecturers. In para 4 of the counter- affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners fulfilled the qualification of the Instructor but not the qualification as that of Lecturer. It is also stated that since the petitioners were appointed as Instructors, they are entitled to the emoluments available to the class of Instructors and that the petitioners may get emoluments of a Lecturer only when the resolution passed by the University is approved by the State Government.
5. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners No. 3 and 5 submits that on the principle "equal pay for equal work", the petitioners are enti tled to the same emoluments payable to the Lecturers as they have been dis charging the same functions and duties which are discharged by Lecturers. Sri Yogesh Agrawal, appearing for petitioners No. 2 and 4 submits that the petitioners have been discriminated against the Physical Training Instruc tors who have already been granted the grade of Lecturer and that under the principle "equal pay for equal work", they are also entitled to the same emoluments as payable to the Lecturers.
6. The question for consideration
