RADHEY SHYAM BHATTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Prakash, J. 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 (Annexure'4' to the counter-affidavit) rejecting the resolution passed by the University.

(3.) 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.