YATINDER MOHAN DUA Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS by this writ petition seek the relief of being granted the pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300/ - from the original date of their appointments. Petitioners on their original appointments were granted a pay scale of Rs.1200 -1560 -2040/ -. Petitioners seek the benefit of the higher pay scale by seeking to place reliance upon the letter of the UGC of September, 1990 besides also by claiming that Prof. Abhai Mansingh Committee which made its recommendation on 16.10.1996 wrongly placed petitioners in para 4B of the report instead of para 6C. Petitioners additionally claim that their posts were equivalent to data entry operators of respondent no.1 -University and which is said to be admitted by the respondent no.1/University in its letter dated 29.6.1999. Petitioners state that they have wrongly been denied the higher pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300/ - from inception and they have been granted the same only from 3.6.1997 and that petitioners should have got this higher pay scale from their dates of appointment during September to November, 1990 so far as petitioner nos.1 to 6 are concerned and so far as petitioner no.7 is concerned w.e.f his date of appointment on 19.12.1991.

(2.) AN entitlement in law for a person to claim higher pay scale can be basically on two grounds. First ground is that the service rules of the organization with which a person is working provides for a specific pay scale and which is denied to the employees. The second reason for claiming of the higher pay scale can be on the basis of application of doctrine of ,,equal pay for equal work. In the present case, petitioners claim the higher pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300/ - as being paid to the data entry operators essentially on the ground of application of doctrine of ,,equal pay for equal work. Though this doctrine is not specifically invoked as per the averments made in the writ petition, however, the writ petition makes averments with respect to qualifications of petitioners who are appointed as junior technical personal assistants being equal to the qualifications required of data entry operators and the consequent entitlement of the petitioners to the higher scale of pay.

(3.) SO far as the challenge which is led by the petitioners to the report of the Prof. Abhai Mansingh Committee which placed the petitioners in para 4(B) instead of para 6(C), the argument raised is once again misconceived for the reason that the committee was constituted with respect to computer operators in the science department of the respondent no.1/University. The science department had computer staff which was treated as a technical side due to the type of work performed by them on the computers. It was also found that these computer operators in science department had not received promotions for 20 years and therefore various aspects including this aspect were considered for granting a higher scale of pay to the computer operators in science department. Surely, once there are no relevant service rules which specifically deny entitlement to grant of a particular pay scale, it is open to an employer such as the respondent no.1 to create avenues for promotion and higher pay scale to those persons who had stagnated for as many as 20 years in the same post. It is like an assured career promotion or one time upward movement scheme. These persons who were granted benefits as per the committee report were differently placed than the petitioners because petitioners had only just some years back and that too with open eyes took up appointments as junior technical personal assistants in the pay scale of Rs.1200 -1560 -2040/ -. Petitioners in terms of the committee report got benefit of a higher pay scale of Rs.1400 - 2300/ - purely as personal cases w.e.f 3.6.1997 in view of the resolution of the respondent no.1/University, however, such an act of the University cannot mean that the University can be forced to grant the higher pay scale of Rs.1400 -2300 from the original dates of appointments of the petitioners from September to November, 1990 so far as petitioner nos.1 to 6 are concerned and December, 1991 so far as petitioner no.7 is concerned.