STATE OF M P Vs. P K SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Madhya Pradesh is assailing the order passed by in Writ Petition No. 2939/89 by which the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition, a direction has been given to the State to revise the pay scales of the respondents who are lecturers in the faculty of Education in various colleges receiving grant-in-aid from the Government, similar to the pay scales as is given to the Lecturers/assistant Professors of the Government aided Colleges of Arts, Science and Commerce faculty with effect from 1986.

(2.) THE respondents are working in the private Colleges which were receiving 100% grant-in-aid. Though they perform same function, their pay scales are different from those as are given to their counter parts in the Government Colleges and in other faculties in aided Colleges. While revising the pay scales under Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 which were made applicable with effect from 1986, their salary was not revised. The respondents are serving in various colleges known as College of Education which impart teaching in the Course which give eligibility to an incumbent to take up teaching assignments. The respondents allege that though they are serving in various colleges/ faculties of education, the pay scales of Arts, Science and Commerce faculties/ Colleges were revised but while extending the "revision of Pay Rules" discrimination has been meted out to them by not extending the benefit of the same whereas in the Government Colleges and the Government aided Colleges, in Arts, Science and Commerce faculties, the benefit of "revision of Pay Rules" has been given uniformly. The respondents allege that there was no rationale or intelligible criteria behind such a classification. They discharge the same duties, they have the same responsibilities and liabilities as their counter parts in other faculties/colleges of the Government and aided institutions and there was no valid reason to deny them the benefit of Revision of Pay Rules which as a matter of fact is necessary to do to keep the pay scale in tune with current devaluation and tends. Respondents further alleged that there were 9 Universities in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, established under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act No. 22 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Under the said Act, statutes have been framed which are common to all the Universities. Statute No. 10 deals with Board of Studies. Regulation 8 thereof deals with Faculty of Education. The Faculty of Education has been opened in several affiliated Colleges. There is also a Government College of Education. Few Universities have Departments in the shape of Faculty of Education. The respondent allege that they are government by Statutes and Ordinances under the Act. They further allege that their pay scales used to be revised from time to time based on recommendations of different Pay Commissions. The respondents further allege that the mode of their recruitment, conditions of service are governed by Statute Nos. 27 and 28 framed under the Act. The teachers in Government Colleges are governed by the M. P. Education (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967. The scales of pay of the Teachers of those Colleges which receive grant-in-aid are governed by the Rules called Madhya Pradesh Revised Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1979. Their service conditions are governed by Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978 (Act No. 20 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Act ). By Act No. 26 of 2000 the name of the Act No. 20 of 1978 has been changed to Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Praday) Adhiniyam, 1978. "

(3.) THE respondents further allege that no discrimination could be meted out to them vis-a-vis to the Lecturers/assistant Professors and the persons serving in other faculties such as Arts, Commerce and Science as the work-load, qualifications and standard of work expected from them are similar to the Teachers employed in other faculties. The age of retirement is similar to other counter part in the aided institutions. Number of class and teaching load taken by them is similar. Thus, the respondents claim equal pay for equal work and also that they have been unequally treated in the matter of pay scale. The Government had appointed a Committee consisting of four persons which had recommended to the Government to pay same pay scales at par with the teachers of other faculties. The respondents further allege that they are entitled to the same pay scales which are being paid to other persons similarly placed in the other faculties. The respondents further allege that even in Polytechnic Institutes, the Revision of Pay Rules have been applied. The staff of those institutes is getting UGC scales of pay. Even the Librarians working in the Department College or Faculty of Education itself are also being paid UGC scales of pay and so also other non-teaching staff serving in the department/college of Education. Thus, the action of non-revising the salary of the respondents is arbitrary and unconstitutional.