GANASHYAM LAL SHARMA Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the upgradation of some of the respondents and praying that his seniority be maintained according to the Seniority List, The petitioner, at present is the Assistant Engineer Grade-I. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer, Campus Development Department of NEHU, respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 25.6.84 in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 now revised to Rs. 2000-3500/-. According to the petitioner, the post of Assistant Engineer has now been redesignated as the Engineer Grade-I and accordingly all the Assistant Engineers in NEHU are holding the post of Engineer Grade-I. According to the: final seniority list of Engineer Grade-I, the name of the petitioner appears as serial No.l. Subsequently, by a notification dated 20.12.90 the respondent Nos. 8,9 & 10 were upgraded in the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600/- now revised to Rs. 2200-4000/- with retrospective effect, whereas the petitioner and others continue to draw the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. Again, on 31.8.91, the respondent Nos. 11, 12 & 13 were upgraded in the scale of pay of Rs. 2200- 4000/- The grievance of the petitioner is, that though the respondenlNos. 8 to 13 were juniors in service, they have been upgraded, whereas the petitioner who is senior, his scale of pay is lower to that of the said respondents.

(2.) In answer to the said petition, the respondent No.l has filed affidavits and has stated that those who have been upgraded are all degree holders is Engineering, whereas the petitioners and some others are only Diploma holders. According to the respondent No. 1, the Assistant Engineers Grade-I were divided into two categories, i.e. Assistant Engineers holding degrees in Engineering and those holding only Diploma. According to the respondent No.l, suitable qualifications to rise in the apex of the cadre/promotion ladder is determined to be minimum of Graduation in Engineering. According to the respondent No.l two categories of the Assistant Engineers were created following the order of University Grants Commission dated September, 1985 within Group 'A' post based on the required qualification as per the report of the Joint Cadre Review Committee which went into the matter and removed the existing anomalies and disparities in the pay and other matters with regard to the employees of the different Central Universities. However, the University Grants Commission, in order to remove stagnation gave a one time upward movement to all the employees who have done their eight years' of satisfactory service on pay scale or have been stagnating in the same scale by their letter dated 19th Feb., '94 and the petitioners were also covered by this order and they were also offered the same benefit of pay.

(3.) The real bone of contention between the parties is, whether persons holding the same post in the same group and doing same or similar duties, could be classified differently on the basis of educational qualification. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and other respondents have joined service as Assistant Engineers and were doing the same or similar work and the petitioner was senior in seniority list to that of other respondents. And, now classifying the Engineers on the basis of those who hold Diplomas and those who hold Degrees in unreasonable and there is no rational nexus with its purported object. In AIR 1974, Supreme Court page 14, the Supreme Court in a five member Bench has held in paragraph 29 of the said judgment: as follows :-