BISHAN SINGH MEHRA AND 48 Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR, GOVIND BALLABH PANT KRISHI AVAM PRODYOGIK VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Vice -Chancellor, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent University was constituted in the year 1958 under the U. P. Krishi Avam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 as an autonomous body. At the time of the constitution of the University it was provided 16000 acres of farm land for its use. In the year 1960, the lowest level Class III posts were in the pay scale of Rs. 230 -385 which included Laboratory Assistant, Clerk -Typist, Accounts Clerks, Store Keepers, Bill Clerks. Through a Government letter No. 2236/12 - 8/400/70/82 dated 11th May, 1983, the Vice -Chancellor of the University was told that there are discrepancies about the positions of 64 categories of employees, in response to which, the Board of Management of the University in its 90th meeting passed a resolution on 30.6.1983 and granted pay scale of Rs. 430 -685 for the scale of Rs. 354 -550 (revised by the Second Pay Commission) and it was further resolved that those appointed prior to 30.6.1983 will be given higher scales as above and all the appointees after said date i.e. 30.6.1983 will be given revised pay scale as recommended by the Second Pay Commission. Accordingly, the Government order dated 20.8.1983 was issued revising the pay scale of Rs. 230 -385 to Rs. 354 -550. However, the University allowed one Sri Govind Singh and Sri C.B. Yadav who were appointees after 30.6.1983 the higher pay scale applicable to the employees who were appointees prior to the said date. The U. P. Government vide D. O. letter No. 1636/1 2 -8 -400(33)/82 dated 1.5.1986 required the University to submit a proposal for consideration of anomalies existing in the revised pay scale by the Second Pay Commission, in response to which the Board of Management granted approval of the revised pay scale as personal scale to its employees who were appointed prior to 30.6.1983. Meanwhile, University in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (1) of Section 10 (7) of the U. P. Krishi Avam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 framed Subordinate Staff Service Rules vide resolution No. 106 dated 25.8.1986 from which date these Rules came into force. It is alleged that the University vide its order dated 25.11.1986 granted revised pay scale of Rs. 430 -685 to Ramesh Chandra Sharma in arbitrary manner. Similarly one B.D. Bhatt was also given the same scale arbitrarily. With effect from 1.1.1986 the pay scale of all Government employees were revised which included Rs. 1200 -2040 for the pay scale of Rs. 430 -685 and Rs. 950 -1500 for the scale Rs. 354 -550. The Board of Management of the University in its 131st meeting made the recommendation of Pay Commission applicable as above. Later on in view of the Government order No. 690/12 -8 -400(238)/89 dated 24,2.1990, Personnel Management Section of the University issued an order dated 28.9.1991 further revising the pay scale of Rs. 354 -550 to Rs. 1200 -2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. To remove the disparities as existed between the similarly situated employees a Standing Committee was constituted by the Board of Management through its meeting No. 141 held on 15.10.1991. The Standing Committee considered the representations of the employees relating to the anomalies and recommended on 17.3.1992 that all the similarly situated employees should be given the same pay scale. The Board of Management accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee but the employees holding the posts of Clerk -typist/Accounts Clerk/Store Keeper which included petitioners were given pay scale of Rs. 950 -1500 and they made a representation dated 25.11.1992 (copy Annexure -16 to the writ petition) that they are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040 like other Class III employees and thereafter , the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 8687 of 1993 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court which on its transfer to High Court of Uttaranchal was renumbered as 2936 of 2001. In said writ petition the difference between the pay scales as against the petitioners was alleged to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Board of Management in its meeting dated 12.9.1994 passed a resolution for adjusting the employees working in the earlier pay scale in the higher pay scale with approval of the pay revision Commission. Aforementioned Sri Govind Singh and Sri C.B. Yadav were adjusted in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040. Sri Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Sri B.D. Bhatt were appointed as Cold Storage Operator and Duplicating Assistant -cum -Mechanic and they were also given the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040. Similarly, one Kamal Singh Rawat who was appointed as Registration Clerk was also allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -2040. A Division Bench of this High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition No. 2936 (S/S) of 2001 vide order dated 22.5.2002 whereby it was directed that the petitioners will be given parity with their other counterparts w.e.f. 9.11.2000. Aggrieved by said order of the High Court of Uttaranchal, a Special Leave Petition Civil No. 19345 -47 of 2002 was moved before the Apex Court by the University. The Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of said petition vide ofder dated 13.1.2003 with the observation that the Vice -Chancellor of the G.B. Pant University, Pant Nagar by Office Order No. VC/Estt./183 dated 22.11.2002 has considered the claim of the respondents regarding parity of pay scale with the other employees. In this writ petition, said order dated 22.11.2002 (copy Annexure -23 to the writ petition) passed by the Vice -Chancellor of the University has been challenged on the ground that the classification made between the employees is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the affidavits along with the annexures annexed thereto.