ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are working as Junior Lecture Assistants, Senior Lecture Assistants, Laboratory Attendants and Senior Laboratory Attendants in different privately managed Government Aided Colleges in the State of Punjab. These Colleges which have been arrayed as respondents 3 to 11 in the writ petition are affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and the Sate Government provides them with financial assistance under the 95% Grant-in-Aid Scheme w.e.f. 1.9.1978. The State Government as per its letter dated January 7, 1981 communicated to the Director, Public Instructions (C), Punjab, Chandigarh its decision to accord sanction to give pay parity in pay scales to the non-teaching staff of privately managed colleges w.e.f. 1.9.1978 with their counterparts working in Government Colleges for the purpose of grant-in-aid. This benefit of pay parity was to be extended to all the employees working against the frozen strength as it stood on 1.11.1977 of the affiliated private colleges. It is not in dispute that the pay scales of the counterparts of the petitioners working in Government Colleges in the State were revised w.e.f. 1.9.1978. The petitioners also claimed that their scales be also revised w.e.f. the same date particularly when the government had already decided to have pay parity in the pay scales of the non-teaching Staff of private colleges and government colleges. The Director, Public Instructions addressed a communication to all the Principals of the Aided Private Colleges in the State seeking information about the annual burden of the expenditure which would have to be incurred for giving arrears of pay to the non-teaching staff of the aided colleges. It appears that since the amount was heavy, the State Government as per its letter dated 30.8.1994/4.10.1994 decided that the non-teaching employees of the Non- Government Aided Colleges would be given the revised pay scales only with effect from the date of issue of this letter with a further stipulation that only the posts sanctioned upto 1.11.1981 in those colleges would be taken into account while releasing the revised pay scales. It is against this decision of the State Government that the present petition has been filed challenging the action of the Goverment in not giving the arrears to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.9.1978 the date from which the pay scales of their counterparts in the Goverment Colleges were revised and arrears paid.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the State Government, it is pleaded that the employees of private colleges are not similarly situated with their counterparts in government colleges and that in terms of the letter dated August 3, 1994 the arrears of revised pay scales could be given to the petitioners only w.e.f. the date of issue of that letter as the Government did not agree to pay them the arrears from any earlier date. It is also pleaded that the financial burden will be too heavy on the government as there are 138 colleges in the State who are being extended financial help under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. The State Government on its own decided to give pay parity in the pay scales to the non-teaching staff of privately managed colleges w.e.f. 1.9.1978 with their counterparts working in Government Colleges for the purpose of grant-in-aid. After taking this decision, the pay scales of the non-teaching staff in government Colleges are revised w.e.f. 1.9.1978 and all the arrears to them have been paid with effect from that date. There is no reason why the arrears should not be paid to the petitioners and they be discriminated. No meaningful distinction has been pointed out in the duties performed by the petitioners in the privately managed colleges and those of their counterparts in Government Colleges and that is why the Government decided to equate them in the matter of pay scales. In Ajmer Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1995 109 PunLR 91 (P&H)(DB) the petitioner therein was working as a Junior Engineer with Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited and the State Government revised the pay scales of Junior Engineers in all its Departments w.e.f. 1.1.1992. The Corporation had decided that the scales of pay as revised by the Haryana Government would be applicable to its employees. The Corporation, however, revised the pay scales of Junior Engineers only w.e.f. January 1, 1993. This action was challenged before the Division Bench and the same was held to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Corporation was directed to grant the benefit w.e.f. the same date from which the employees of the State Government were given the benefit of revised pay scales. In R.S. Sharma and others v. State of Punjab, 1991 3 SCT 228(P&H), I had taken a similar view. In that case the State Government had decided to equate the posts of Legal Assistants in the Transport Department with those in the Department of Law and Legislation and later when it decided to give different pay scales to the Legal Assistants in the Transport Department the State Government was directed to equate them with those in the Department of Law and Legislation with effect from the same date. Merely because the financial burden is heavy is no ground to deny the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners with effect from the date when those were given to their counterparts in the Government Colleges.