PADMAJA PANDIT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present Writ Petition challenge has been made to the legality of the order and Judgment dated 18.12.2002 passed in O.A. No. 389/c/ 98 (Annexure -9) by which the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has held that the Petitioners who were recruited to the post of junior lecturers and taking classes in degree course are not entitled to get salary at par with lecturers of degree course, on the ground that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to the present case are that Petitioner No. 1 -Padmala Pandit passed M.A. from Utkal University in 1089 in first division securing 60% marks in Economics. She has also done M. Phil in Berhampur University in 1990 securing 59.1% marks. Petitioner No. 2 -Chandan Das passed M.A. in English in Utkal University securing 63.5% marks in 1988 and did M. Phil in Utkal University securing 66.5% marks. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.10.1991 published by Orissa Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'OPSC') for recruitment to the posts of Junior Lecturers, Petitioners applied for the same. They being found suitable in the process of selection as conducted by the OPSC were appointed as Junior Lecturers on 17.11.1992 and 15.12.1992 respectively. While the Petitioners were continuing as Junior Lecturers, they were asked to take up classes of +3 courses. However, they have not been paid salary, which the lecturers of +3 courses, i.e., degree course were getting. , Being aggrieved, Petitioners approached the Tribunal stating that since they were discharging higher duties and responsibilities by taking classes of degree courses they were entitled to draw scale of pay at par with lecturers of degree course. Learned Tribunal vide its Order Dated 18.12.2002 dismissed the original application. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that Learned Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the case of the Petitioners and has rightly dismissed the original application which needs no interference by this Court. The main thrust of his argument was that separate rules and guidelines were prescribed governing recruitment and service conditions of junior lecturers and that of lecturers of degree courses. According to the service conditions, the salary was paid to the Petitioners. They were not entitled to get the salary at par with the lecturers of degree courses merely because they were taking classes in degree courses in addition to the classes in +2 courses. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has no application in the present case. Virtually, Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the State has supported the order of the Learned Tribunal.