J C MEHTA Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are teachers who were initially appointed as research/teaching/extension associates and were then redesignated as Assistant Professors and equivalent. They all came to be so appointed between January 1, 1976 to September 8, 1980. The post in question carried pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 as per recommendations of the University Grants Commission and they were so appointed under scheme of Indian Council of Agriculture and Research (I.C.A.R.) which recommended the University to grant same pay scales as are given by the University to Assistant Professors and equivalent as approved by the University Grants Commission. The case of the petitioners is that w.e.f. January 1, 1973 the University Grants Commission recommended the revision of pay scales of teachers in the service of the Universities in the country in respect of the following posts.

(2.) The petitioners have supported their case by placing on record various judgments the reference to which has been given above. Further the petitioners have made a positive averment, which averment, it may be mentioned at this stage has not been controverted at all that the Research Assistant/Extension/Teaching Associates of the Universities possess the same qualifications as are that of a Lecturer. They are performing similar duties with similar qualifications and, therefore, they cannot be legitimately denied the revised pay scales as per recommendations of the University Grants Commission which is also being supported by the Indian Council of Agricultural and Research. They further contend that the revised pay scales should be granted to the petitioners from the same date as were revised in the case of Lecturers.

(3.) The Haryana Agricultural University issued an ordered on 18th of September, 1980 wherein it is mentioned that in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board of Management in the meeting held on 8th September, 1980, it was decided to revise the pay scales of Teaching/Research/Extension Associates w.e.f. 8th of September, 1980. The aforesaid decision is reflected through Annexure P-7 annexed with the petition. The petitioners contend that the decision to revise their pay scales from 8th of September, 1980 and not from a date when the same pay scales were allowed to the Lecturers, would result in discrimination and arbitrariness. Besides the arbitrary date i.e. 8th of September, 1980 was a sheer violation of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission and clarifications given by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contends that once an equation of the posts of petitioners with that of Lecturers was found to be justified even by the competent authorities, there was no reason with the respondents to equate the pay scale of the petitioner with the Lecturers from a later date. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon decisions rendered by Rajasthan High Court which decisions, as referred to above, were even confirmed by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no distinction between the facts of the present case with the one of Rajasthan High Court and therefore, the matter is totally covered in favour of the petitioners, contends the learned counsel. The petitioners have been trying to get their due and the matter was even taken up by the Research Associates with Haryana Agricultural University Authorities for the grant of University Grants Commission scales. The request succeeded only partially inasmuch as the respondent-University granted pay scales of Rs. 700-1600 only from September 1980 on which date as well the petitioners were re-designated as Assistant Professors and equivalent.