Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30215 of 2014 Petitioner :- Dr. Neeraj Srivastava And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Singh,Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Tiwari,Neeraj Tripathi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Shri Neeraj Srivastava, in person and Shri Akash Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner No. 1 has appeared in person and he also filed authority of other petitioners' to appear for arguing matter on their behalf.
3. Admittedly all the petitioners were appointed on different dates as Lecturers in different subjects running under self finance course, in Brahmavart Post Graduate College, Mandhana, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "College"). The said college is affiliated to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
4. Impugned Government Order No. 53/Sattar-2-2014-16 (390)/2013 dated 05.02.2014 has been issued by State Government Respondent-1. The said Government Order provided that aided non-government College/ Post Graduate College were covered under "Higher Education Quality Development Scheme" shall be given lump-sum amount to be disbursed to eligible teachers, as per criteria mentioned in the Government Order. The said Government Order also sought certain undertakings from the concerned Degree Colleges / Post Graduate Colleges. One of the conditions for qualifying to get benefit under said scheme was that the Degree College must belong to category 'A' recognized by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'NAAC').
5. Grievance of the petitioners is that clauses (3) and (4) not speak about the Colleges which do not fall within eligibility criteria i.e. category 'A' recognized by NAAC.
6. Petitioners have staked their claim that they having been appointed under the Self Finance Scheme, stands on the same footing as the Teachers / Lecturers of the Colleges belonging to category 'A' recognized by NAAC and therefore, impugned Government Order is discriminatory and on the principle of equal pay and equal work, petitioners are also entitled to same treatment.
7. We have carefully gone through the impugned Government Order and do not find any illegality or irregularity in the conditions / criteria prescribed in the said Government Order which can be said to be perverse or contrary to any statutory Act or rules governing Degree Colleges / Post Graduate Colleges.
8. We have also carefully perused Section 60-E of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1973") as well as Government order dated 21.08.2000. We find that impugned order is not in violation of Section 60-E of Act 1973. Section 60-E in fact has no application in the case in hand. It is part of chapter 11-A of Act 1973 which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1975. It deals with payment of salary to teachers and other employee of degree colleges. The term 'College' and 'Teachers' used in various provisions of Chapter 11-A are defined in Section 60-A (i, vi) which read as under:-
(i) 'College' means any college affiliated to or recognized by any University in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the Statutes made thereunder and for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government (but does not include a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a [Nagar Mahapalika];
(vi) 'teacher', in relation to a college, means a teacher in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75, or who is employed with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned-
(a) to a post created, before April 1, 1975, with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor concerned; or
(b) to a post created, after March 31, 1975, with the permission of the Director of Education (Higher Education).
8. The payment of salary to teachers under chapter 11-A of Act, 1973 is permissible only when a teacher is appointed on or after 31.03.1975 on a post created with the permission of Director of Education (Higher Education). Section 60-E also makes it clear that State Government shall be liable for payment of salary against such posts of teachers of every such college which is taken in grant-in-aid list by State Government on after 31 March 1975 or if it is against post created after college was taken in grant-in-aid list, with the permission of Director (Higher Education) or by State Government and were duly filled with the approval of Director of Higher Education or an officer authorized by him. Third proviso of Section 60-E further makes it clear, where the post is created by State Government or the Director Higher Education with the clear condition that the liability of payment of salary shall be borne by Management of respective college, there State Government would not be liable for payment of salary. The matter of payment of salary to teachers appointed under self financed scheme is clearly provided in the forth proviso of Section 60-E (1) and teachers appointed under self finance scheme are not entitled for claiming salary from State Exchequer.
9. In view of the aforesaid clear provision it cannot be said that petitioners are entitled for salary at par with other teachers who were appointed and getting salary from the State Exchequer. We also find that in fact the claim of petitioner that they are not being extended 'salary based on the principle' of equal pay for equal work is also not correct for the reason that government order clearly provides that salary shall be admissible to the teachers under the aforesaid scheme as per the approved pay scale of teachers at the minimum plus grade pay and other allowances admissible thereon. Section 60-E no where provides that in all respective conditions of service of teachers they are entitled for salary from State Exchequer. Section 60-E is attracted only in respect to the liability of the State Exhequer for payment of salary of teachers in the colleges governed by Chapter 11-A and nothing beyond that therefore to claim that impugned government order dated 05.02.2014 is contrary to Section 60-E is clearly misconceived and hence rejected.
10. In the result writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Swati