H.G. GHATA Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and recovery of pay according to the scales fixed by the University Grants Commission for Fine Mechanics employed in the Banaras Hendu University. Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to receive his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 100-5-155-71-200 from March 25, 1957 to June 1959, and Rs. 130-5-160-8-190-EB-8-256 from July 1959 to March 1968, and thereafter in the scale of Rs. 200-10-290-15-380 from April 1968 to Jan. 1969. These pay scales were fixed under the rules framed by the University Grants Commission. Plaintiffs grievance was that he was not paid his salary 'according to the scales fixed. He accordingly claimed a sum of Rs. 4,368.46 being the difference of the amount he had been paid and 'the amount he was entitled to under the revised pay scales. The petitioner further prayed that his gratuity and pension be fixed at Rs. 200 per month.

(2.) Plaintiffs case was that he was appointed as a Fine Mechanic in the Central Hindu College, Kamacbha Section, of the Banaras Hindu University in the year 1955 in the pay scale of Rs. 60-5-150. His initial appointment was made at Rs. 75 per month. He served in the college till June 1965. In July 1965 the plaintiff' was transferred to the Department of Physics in the University. In the year 1956-57, the pay scale of Fine Mechanics of the Banaras Hindu University was revised and fixed at Rs. 100-5-155-7-200. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the higher scale fixed. He was, however, not paid according to that scale. He made a representation to the Registrar on 27-8-1957 for being fixed in the revised scale. It was followed by reminders. They were kept under consideration. In the year 1959 the pay scale was again revised by the University Grants Commission. The plaintiff again claimed to be entitled to the higher grades as sanctioned. He again applied to the Registrar to be fixed in the time scales revised by the University Grants Commission from time to time and sent copy of his representation to the Secretary, University Grants Commission. The Registrar assured the plaintiff of necessary action but no action followed. The plaintiff waited till 26-6-1967 and then made an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor. He prayed to be fixed in the scales revised from time to time by the University Grants Commission, and asked for payment of his salary according to those scales. On 3-8-1968, he received a reply from the Registrar that it was not possible to consider his upgrading and pay him according to the revised pay scales as he was retiring on 31st Jan., 1969. The gratuity and pension claimed by the plaintiff was also not considered on that ground. Plaintiffs case was that pay scales fixed by the University Grants Commission had been accepted by the Executive Council of the University by its resolution Nor 310 dated 3-2-1957, and the plaintiff could accordingly claim to be fixed in 'those scales and paid accordingly. According to him, he had been making representations to the authorities concerned and they had been assuring him of necessary action. However, ultimately his request was turned down by an ceremonial communication that since he was about to retire, his claim could not be considered. This gave him a cause of action for the suit which, arose under the order of the University dated 3-6-1968 refusing to fix him in the revised grades and pay him accordingly. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he was entitled to be fixed in the grades revised from time to time and claimed a sum of Rs. 4,358.46 being the difference of the pay received and the pay he was entitled to under the pay scales revised by the University Grants Commission from time to time. The cause of action for the suit was alleged to arise on 3-6-1968 when the plaintiff's claim was refused. The suit was filed on 22-9-1969.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on the pleas inter alia that though the pay scale of Fine Mechanics was revised from time to time but plaintiff could not claim to be fixed in the same as he did not posses the necessary qualifications. It was alleged that there was no general upgrading of all Fine Mechanics, and the revised pay scales were admissible only to these Fine Mechanics who fulfilled certain necessary qualifications. The plaintiff did not fulfil those qualifications, hence he was not fixed in the revised grades. The claim was further alleged to be misconceived as the plaintiff had no legal right to claim the grades revised from time to time. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by time.