AJIT SINGH Vs. THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a former Professor and Head of the Department of Laws. He had retired from the Punjabi University Patiala on 31st July, 1996. He was re -employed from 1st August, 1986 to 31st July, 1988. During this period, he was paid a fixed amount of Rs. 2,500 per month. He represented. Nothing fruitful having ensued, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the action was arbitrary and violative of the principle of equal pay for 'equal work'. The Petitioner has also cited instances to show that the action was discriminatory. He prays that the Respondents be directed to pay him a salary equal to the last pay drawn by him at the time of retirement together with all allowances and interest etc.

(2.) THE Respondent -University contests the Petitioner's claim on the ground that he having accepted a contractual employment on a fixed salary of Rs. 2,500 per month is now stopped from claiming the pay as drawn by him at the time of his retirement. He cannot claim parity with the regular employees serving in the University. In any event, the writ petition filed by him suffers from the vice of laches. Even a suit "on the same cause of action would be barred under law of limitation. The representation submitted by the Petitioner was duly considered by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 23rd March, 1992. His plea was not found tenable. Hence, it was rejected. He was informed of the decision vide letter dated 22nd April, 1992. The University also repudiates the allegation of discrimination. It has, however, been admitted that "Professor P.K. Kapur of the Department of Business Management was offered employment on a fixed salary which he. was drawing at the time of superannuation on contract basis...the Syndicate had considered it fit to grant full pay and allowances to Shri P.K. Kapur on his re -employment as a Professor." Similarly, an attempt has been made to explain the factual position with regard to various' other persons named by the Petitioner. On these premises, it has been claimed that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) THE Petitioner argued his case with clarity. He contended that the action of the University was violative of Statute 38(c). It suffers from the vice of discrimination. There was no basis to deny the scale of the post of Professor to him. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Sethi who appeared for the Respondents contended that the University had the discretion to offer extension, re -employment or a fresh employment on contract basis. The Petitioner having voluntarily accepted the offer, he was estopped from making any claim for a higher salary. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.