APANGSHU MOHAN LODH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein belong to legal profession and are practising advocates. They were appointed as Part-Time Lecturers in M.B.B. College, Agartala on a fixed pay. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, for issuance of a writ or in the naure of mandamus to the respondents to accord unto them proportionate equal pay for equal work, for working as part-time Lecturers. A learned single Judge of the High Court accepted the plea of the appellants herein and allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the respondent-State of Tripura preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. There was a delay of 460 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, the State of Tripura filed an application for condonation of delay. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and upon hearing the parties allowed the same. Consequently the judgment and order of the learned single Judge was set aside. Aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that since filing of Letters Patent Appeal was grossly delayed and there being no explanation for condonation of delay, the High Court ought not to have condoned the same. We do not find any merit in this submission. The Division Bench found that the State had made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This power of condonation is discretionery and has to be liberally construed.

(3.) Learned counsel then urged that the appellants being part-time Lecturers were entitled to proportionate increase in the remuneration on the principle of 'parity in pay'. Before the High Court, no such plea was taken. The learned single judge of the High Court had applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as contradistinguished from the principle of 'parity in pay' and in giving the directions strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 265.