SUNDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are Demonstrators in the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology (MIT), Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur College of Engineering, Bhagalpur and Bihar Institute of Technology (BIT), Sindri. In this writ petition they have sought direction to the Respondents to give them revised pay scales recommended by the University Grants Commission (UGC) from time to time, and apply the same service conditions with respect to leave, pay, higher educational facilities etc. treating them at par with Demonstrators of Bihar College of Engineering (BCE), Patna. During the course of hearing, however, the prayer was confined to giving direction to treat them (the Petitioners) at par with their counterparts of BCE, Patna in the matter of superannuation age only. It was stated by their counsel Mr. Basudev Prasad that the rest of the reliefs stood granted as the State Government has decided to give "all teaching facilities including the vacation" to them. Reference in this connection was made to the supplementary counter affidavit said to have been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. It may be stated here that no such supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The Petitioners have, however, filed a supplementary affidavit on 26.7.93 annexing a copy of the so-called supplementary counter affidavit. They have stated that a copy of the said supplementary counter affidavit containing the aforementioned statement regarding giving all teaching facilities including vacation to the Petitioners was served on their counsel on 6.4.93. It is doubtful, even it be accepted that copy of the said supplementary counter affidavit was served on the Petitioners' counsel, whether any statement made therein can be used for the purpose of this case as the same was never filed. Be that as it may, since, as stated above, submissions were confined to the question of the age of superannuation of demonstrators in the colleges in question alone and no argument was advanced with respect to other reliefs, I do not propose to deal with other matters in this judgment.

(2.) The only question for consideration is whether the Petitioners are entitled to the same age of superannuation as in the case of demonstrators of the Bihar College of Engineering (BCE), Patna.

(3.) The sheet-anchor of the Petitioner's claim is inter-parte judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 522 of 1979. That writ petition was filed seeking mandamus to designate them as demonstrators (they were then working as Laboratory Assistants) and to implement the UGC pay scales prescribed for demonstrators with effect from 1.4.73. The grievance in the said writ petition was that the State Government had made discrimination between the Laboratory Assistants (Demonstrators) of MIT Muzaffarpur, BIT, Sindri and Bhagalpur Engineering College on the one hand and their counterparts of BCE, Patna on the other by implementing UGC pay scales in the case of latter while denying the same to the former, although they are similarly situate in all respects. A Division Bench of this Court under its judgment dated 2.7.80 found that the educational qualification and job contents of the Demonstrators (erst-while Laboratory Assistants) in the BCE, Patna are the same as those of the Laboratory Assistants employed in other Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, including MIT, Muzaffarpur, BIT, Sindri and Bhagalpur Engineering College. The plea of the Respondents that the demonstrators of BCE, Patna stood as a different class from the Laboratory Assistants of the other Engineering Colleges was rejected. In the opinion of this Court the only distinction pointed out by the Respondents to the effect that while the Demonstrators of BCE, Patna were under the administrative control of Patna University whereas, the three Colleges in question function under the administrative control of the Government of Bihar was of no consequence because BCE, Patna also is a College owned by the State and the fund for payment of salary etc. is provided by the State Government itself. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the State Government before the Supreme Court vide SLP (Civil) No. 9096 of 1980 which was rejected. Thereafter the Government implemented the judgment giving the UGC pay scales and redesignated them as Demonstrators.