DR. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure-2) by which two different and distinct pay-scales have been fixed for the same post of Reader in contravention of the University Grants Commission Package and Art. 39-D of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have further prayed for direction to the respondents to fix an uniform and similar pay-scale for the post of Reader as per the UGC package, as both doing the same duty, having similar eligibility, qualification and process of appointment is also the same and further for quashing of Annexure-7, especially part 3 (i) and 3 (ii) by which the condition has been imposed so far as it relates to Sidhu Kanhu University.

(2.) All the petitioners were working as Reader with due concurrence and recommendation by the Bihar State University and working in different Departments and Colleges under the Sidhu Kanhu University and have been promoted vide different orders under the time bound statute. While continuing, as such, the respondents came up with arbitrary fixation of cut off date i.e. a person given promotion prior to 01.03.1989 and post 01.03.1989, two pay-scales have been given though both the categories were working and performing the same duty and there was no rationale nexus or object, which was sought to be achieved by fixing the cut-off date assigned by the respondents. Vide notification dated 13.11.2001 (Annexure-2), the State Government came out with notification by which two different scales of Reader has been fixed against UGC scheme/package though in the same letter, stated that UGC package has been adopted and accepted by the State in toto except enhancement of superannuation age, but, in spite of that, two scales of Reader have been fixed without any nexus or object. The University Grants Commission has recommended only one pay-scale of Reader but the State Government without any rationale nexus, has fixed two pay-scales. In similar matter, decided by the Honourable Rajasthan High Court in W.P. (S) No. 2558 of 1998, it has been held that there cannot be two discriminatory scales of pay as per Annexure-4 to the writ application and also the Honourable Apex Court has rendered the well-settled law 'equal pay for equal work' in terms of Art. 39 (D) of the Constitution of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 1505. During pendency of the writ application, the respondents came out with letter dated 31.05.2005 by which certain conditions have been imposed and on fulfilment of the said condition, the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-420- 18,300.00 will be admissible to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. Similar issue came up before the Honourable Patna High Court, which has been reported in 2005 (4) PLJR 174, wherein, the Honourable Court has been pleased to hold that condition put for the scale is without any rational and without a purpose to achieve any object and the same are violative of right guaranteed to teachers under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the order passed by the Honourable Patna High Court, the State of Bihar has struck down the impugned condition and has accepted the UGC package dated 27.07.1998 and given the arrears with effect from 01.01.1996. The case of the petitioners stand in the same footing and the petitioners are entitled to be extended with the same benefit as per the order dated 28.09.2005 vide Annexure-15 to the supplementary affidavit. It has further been stated in the supplementary affidavit that as per Annexure-16, dated 31.12008, 6th UGC package, which came into existence, has recognized only one pay-scale of Reader and also speaks about the incentive for Ph.D. or M-phil degree holder. Left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioners have preferred the present writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondents-authorities in fixing two different pay-scales on the ground that the petitioners are similarly situated persons amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, being bereft of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents have acted in contravention of UGC package and in contravention of Articles 14, 16 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decisions dated 20.06.2017, passed in W.P. (S) No. 4162 of 201