LAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were engaged ou part time basis to delive lectures at different Government polytechnics maintained by the Government of Bihar, for which they are paid honorarium at the rats fixed per lecture subject to a maximum honorarium per month fixed from time to time, have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners the same pay scale which is being paid to the full time regularly appointed lecturers working in the various Government Polytechnics maintained by the State of Bihar. They have also claimed regularisation of their services on the ground that they are being discriminated against by being compelled to discharge the same duties as are discharged by full-time lecturers of the Government Polytechnics, but their tenure of appointment is precarious and the honorarium paid to them not comparable with the emoluments paid to regularly appointed full-time lecturers.

(2.) I shall take the relevant facts from C. W. J. C. No. 6751 of 1991. There are 33 petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. They claim that they are Engineering graduates, each one of them possessing B. Sc (Engineering) Degree from a recognised institute/University. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respective Principals of the Institutions, they applied for appointment as part-time lecturers in different years. They were selected to work against the post of part-time lecturer, and this was approved by the Department of Science and Technology. They were to be paid honorarium at the rate prescribed for each lecture, subject to a maximum amount such month. The honorarium payable to the petitioners was enhanced from time to time. The petitioners took engineering classes in the same manner as the permanent lecturers of the Institutes. They bad also to perform invigilation work, setting of question papers, evaluation of answer-books etc. They have performed these duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and in this manner they have put in several years as part-time lecturers.

(3.) It is contended that the Government by its communication dated 26-2-1991 enhanced the honorarium to Rs. 60/-per lecture from Rs. 30/-per lecture, subject to a maximum of Rs. 1300/-per month. However, they are being denied regular scale of pay of Rs. 700-1300/-which is being paid to the lecturers appointed on regular basis According to them, since the nature of duties discharged and the responsibilities shouldered by them are of the same quality and nature as those discharged by regularly recruited full time lecturers, on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, they are entitled to be paid the same emolument as are being paid to full time lecturers. They have also invoked the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and submitted that there is no reason to distinguish between part-time and full-time lecturers, if they are required to perform the same duties and shoulder similar responsibilities. It is their case that since they have rendered services for so many years, they must be absorbed in the regular service of the State and cannot be subjected to exploitation by the State. The denial of regularisation, according to them, is denial of justice to them. The petitioners have represented before the concerned authorities for the regularisation of their services but that has yielded no result. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have prayed that they be regularised in service and be paid the same emoluments as are being paid to the regularly appointed lecturers at the various Government Polytechnics.