D C DUDI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plea of equal pay for equal work which has often been raised before the different judicial forums and authoritative pronouncements are already galore on this question, has once again been raised in this special appeal by the appellants herein, who have been teaching in graduate and post -graduate classes in different subjects in the University of Rajasthan and are being paid only an honorarium at Rs.75/ - per period. Although, according to their case, their appointments have all the trappings of appointment as Lecturer on substantive or ad hoc basis, still they have been facing discrimination on the count of payment of salary /remuneration. This had been the common cause of all these petitioners which prompted them to file a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 1177/1995, which had been placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who by order dated 8.3.1995 was pleased to dismiss the same holding therein that the appointment of the petitioners had been on part time basis and, hence, they could not claim the salary of lecturers who had substantively been appointed. A writ petition of similar nature had also been filed in this Court before the Principal seat of this High Court at Jodhpur which took a different view and had allowed the writ petition holding that the lecturers who had been appointed on honorarium basis were entitled to the emoluments of regularly appointed teachers. However, the petitioners could not get the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.5.1995 since an appeal had been preferred before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Jodhpur which was still pending and was subsequently allowed on 19.7.1995. But prior to that the SBCWP No. 177 of 1995, which was preferred by the petitioners stood dismissed by order dated 8.3.1995. Hence, this Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1969.

(2.) THE appellants herein hold the degree of Ph.D. in different subjects and possess the requisite eligibility for substantive appointment on the post of lectures in various subjects in the University of Rajasthan. But ever since 1989, no selections have been held by the University of Rajasthan for the purpose of making substantive appointment on the vacant post of lecture in any of the subjects. Hence, a stop -gap arrangement had been evolved by the respondent University, whereunder eligible persons were appointed as Lecturers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the academic session and were continued in service upto the end of the academic session where after their services were terminated in order to save the University from the liability of paying the vacation salary and were thereafter re - employed in the same fashion in the subsequent academic session and for this purpose circulars were issued from time to time. The appellants herein had been employed in the aforesaid manner from the year 1990. In the year 1994, a fresh circular dated 21.9.1994 was issued by the respondent University of Rajasthan and the appellants were engaged for teaching under -graduate and post - graduate students in their respective subjects for which they were paid honorarium of Rs. 75/ - per period. Gradually, this arrangement made by the University gave rise to a feeling of exploitation and a sense of discrimination to the appellants as they felt that although they are discharging the same nature of functions which are being discharged by regularly selected teachers, yet they are deprived of the salary paid to the regular appointees and were also denied the salary for the vacation leave etc. and other fringe benefits. As already stated hereinabove, the appellants feeling aggrieved, were constrained to invoke the extraordinary write jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filling a writ petition which stood dismissed giving rise to this Special Appeal.

(3.) IT is quite obvious that the action of making appointments on honorarium basis on year to year basis, which according to the phraseology used by the University circular was introduced 'in order to cover the uncovered workload of teaching in the University' has been assailed on behalf of the appellants as an action most arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants addressed this Court at length and satisfied that the nature of function discharged by these appellants are not in any way less or inferior than that what is being performed by the Lecturers who are regularly appointed. On hearing the counsel for the parties, on this count, we are satisfied that the appellants, although, are paid on the honorarium basis, their nature of duties is in no manner different from other regularly selected appointees. If that is the position, we have not been able to understand the rationale of discrimination in payment of the remuneration to the appellants especially in the wake of the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court as also this Court. However, since the respondent University initially thought it proper to contest this appeal, it became essential on behalf of the appellants to refresh the case laws on the question of equal pay for equal work. Attention of this Court was, therefore, first of all, invited to AIR 1992 SC 699 in the matter of Kamataka State Private College Lecturers' Association v. State of Karnataka where the so -called temporary teachers were paid the fixed salary of Rs. 10/ - less than the minimum payable to the regularly employed, obviously to negative their claim for regularisation arid regular salary and other incidental benefits. This method of payment was deprecated and the learned Judges observed that an appointment may be temporary or permanent, but the nature of work being similar, and the temporary appointment even though may be due to exigency of service and the non - availability of permanent vacancies or as the stop gap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, yet there could be no justification for paying the teachers so appointed a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment, than a regular teacher Fixation of such emolument was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judges further observed that a temporary or ad hoc employee may not have claim to be permanent without facing selection, or being absorbed in accordance with the rules, but no discrimination can be made for the same job on the basis of method of recruitment. Such injustice was held to be abhorring to the constitutional scheme. Thus, the practice of appointing teachers temporarily for a year with break of a day or two after three months by privately managed degree colleges which had been receiving grant -in -aid from the State Government was deprecated by the Apex Court. A similar view was taken also in the case of Vijai Kumar and Ors. v. state of Punjab and Ors. : (1994)IILLJ710SC , where part time lecturers not gainfully employed elsewhere were entitled to be paid according to the minimum of pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed lecturers, the duties of which post they were discharging during the period of their appointment as part time lecturer. Thus, there are series of decisions on this question including the one which has been pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court itself on 19.7.1995 in D.B. Civi1 Special Appeal No.537/1995 in the matter of Jai Narain Vyas University of Jodhpur v. Narendra Singh Rathore and Ors. (a copy of which has been annexed herewith the memo of appeal). But it would be wholly unnecessary to discuss the facts and ratio of the decisions in each of those cases as all the decisions have consistently laid down that the employer is bound to pay to such employee according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post, the duties of which such an employee is discharging. In Vijai Kumar's case, the teacher were part time lecturers and not temporary lecturers, yet no distinction had been made in regard to payment on the basis of the nature of appointment, but what was considered important was the nature of duties which was discharged by them.