SUHAS DIGAMBAR VIDWANS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners father was working in the University of Bombay, Department of Chemical Technology, Matunga as a Glass Blower for 23 years and died on December 7, 1973. After his death, under the relevant rules, the petitioner was employed by the University as a Laboratory Assistant-cum-Typist-Clerk under the Indian Organic Chemicals Scheme undertaken in the University Department of Chemical Technology on April 21, 1977 where he worked till December 4, 1978. From December 5, 1978 he worked as a Typist-cum Clerk in the University Department of Chemical Technology till June 30, 1980 and was then transferred to the Examination Section of the University. He was paid at the time of his initial appointment a consolidated salary of Rs. 250/- per month till December 4, 1978 but when he joined the office of the University from December 5, 1978 he was paid a basic salary of Rs. 335/- He was given a break of one day after every three months and thus in all three breaks were given to him upto August, 1979. He was recommended to be continued in the service without break by the Director of University Department of Chemical Technology by letters dated November 12, 1979 and March 13, 1980. His salary was reduced from Rs. 335/- to Rs. 260/- with effect from April, 1979 and it was contended by the University that it was on account of implementation of what is known as Bhole Commission Report. He was transferred to Examination section of the Bombay University from July 1, 1980 where he has been in continuous service. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has been getting a basic salary of Rs. 260/- and no benefits of leave, medical leave, travel allowance etc. are paid to him although he has been holding a budgeted post. He, therefore, served the University with a legal notice on February 14, 1984 requesting for all the benefits mentioned hereinabove to which he got a reply on January 21, 1985 that the matter was under consideration. The petitioner raised a contention in his petition that all other employees of the University were given benefits, as stated above, from January 1, 1985 but he was denied those benefits merely because he did not sign a certain undertaking dated April 15, 1985 which the University took from all temporary employees. He also made a grievance about his seniority which was very arbitrarily fixed and about non-confirmation. He therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filling this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petition is resisted by and on behalf of the University of Bombay on the grounds that the petitioner was initially not an employee of the University but was taken up as a Laboratory Assistant-cum -Typist on a Research Project sponsored by M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Limited in the Food Technology Section of the Department of Chemical Technology with effect from April 21, 1977 and he resigned that post on December 4, 1978 to take up a fresh temporary appointment as a Typist-Clerk in the office with effect from December 5, 1978. It was, therefore, contended by the University that the petitioner became the regular employee of the University from December 5, 1978 and his service period with the University is counted from that date and taking into consideration his date of appointment as December 5, 1978 he would be given all benefits of salary as per the Bhole Commission Report. At the hearing it was also submitted on behalf of the University that despite the fact that the petitioner had not given undertaking he would not be deprived of any benefits which others are getting but his date of joining the services of the University should be held to be from December 5, 1978 and not from April 21, 1977.

(3.) IN support of the petition, Mrs. Thadani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that all documentary evidence on the record shows that the petitioner was in continuous service of the University from April 21, 1977 and merely because he gave up the scheme job and joined the University Department from December 5, 1978 he should not be denied the benefits of continuous service with University from April 21, 1977 Mrs. Thadani also stated that the manner in which the seniority of the petitioner was fixed in an arbitrary manner denying him his usual rank and not confirming him although any number of budgetted posts were available in the cadre is, to say the least, the worst type of exploitation by the University. The vehement the argument advance by Mrs. Thadani is that the petitioner was discriminated against and exploited by the University merely because he did not sign the undertaking dated April 15, 1985. On behalf of the University, its learned Counsel, Mr. Palshikar urged that the University did not act mala fide in any manner whatsoever but honestly believed that the petitioner was appointed regularly in the services of the University effective from December 5, 1978 as prior to that he was working on a scheme sponsored by Indian Organic Chemicals from April 21, 1977. In support of his contention, Mr. Palshikar submitted that unlike the other employees of the University the petitioner was not given a basic salary in a running scale but was a paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 250/- per month which shows that he was initially not recruited as an employee of the University. Mr. Palshikar stated that the salary of the petitioner had to be reduced in order to implement the recommendations of the Bhole Commission regard being had that he was employed in the University from December 5, 1978. Mr. Morje, learned State Government Counsel, canvassed that the employment was given to the petitioner by the University of Bombay and that the State Government has nothing to do with it except that if the petitioner is held by this Court to be entitled to the arrears of salary the Government will have to pay it and, therefore, it may be specifically made clear that the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate grounds as his father who was earlier working with the University had expired. On behalf of one the employees (respondent No. 7) who was shown senior to the petitioner in the seniority list, Mr. Ghaisas urged that the petitioner had worked in an ex-cadre post before December 5, 1978,and therefore, he would not be entitled to any benefits as if he had joined the services of the University effective from April 21, 1977.