Reserved on:21.03.2018 Delivered on: 30.03.2018 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13363 of 1996 Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Kaktiyar Respondent :- V.C. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.Srivastava,A.Sharma,R. Mawar,S.S.Chauhan,S.S.Sachan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav,S N Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent no.1, the Vice-Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University, Kanpur to provide the petitioner, the grade of Rs.500-900 from the date of his appointment which is being paid to the similarly situated employees and also provide the benefit of pay revision after giving the aforesaid grade. The direction for payment of difference of salary to the petitioner which will become due after granting him the grade of Rs.500-900 has also been prayed. By way of amendment prayer for quashing of the order dated 20.12.1993 and 25.09.1995 passed by respondent no.1 has also been incorporated in the writ petition.
The brief facts of the petition are that the Government of U.P. vide its circular dated 10.02.1981 has declared the services of Group II and Group III employees of the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur as Research Assistants having educational qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture. By a subsequent circular dated 06.06.1981 the U.G.C Grade of pay i.e. Rs.500-900 fixed for Research Assistants was extended to the persons having qualification of B.Sc. in other subjects, like Chemistry, Botany, Mathematics etc., and they were held entitled to be appointed on the post of Research Assistant. Under the aforesaid circular the Research Assistant was given grade of Rs.500-900. The petitioner having qualification for the post of Research Assistant applied for appointment on the post of Lab Assistant-cum-Field Assistant in the pay-scale Rs.400-615 on adhoc basis and he was issued an appointment letter dated 07.01.1988. However, the petitioner was not given appointment and his appointment order was modified on 03.02.1988 and he was appointed on the post of Research Assistant and accordingly, the petitioner joined his post on 06.02.1988 in the Department of Soils and Agriculture Chemistry in the pay-scale of Rs.400-615.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is also performing research work in the department like other Research Assistants, who are getting the grade of Rs.500-900 sanctioned by the Government but the petitioner is being paid salary in the basic of lower pay-scale of Rs.400-615. The petitioner has brought on record the appointment letters of several Research Assistants, who were appointed in the grade of Rs.500-900 by the University and it has been alleged that the petitioner is entitled to the same grade of pay as similarly situated employees are getting and has alleged the ground of discrimination against the respondents.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed without following the procedure of appointment on his own request in the pay-scale of Rs.400-615 and in case he seeks parity in the grade from similarly situated employees getting Rs.500-900, he should have impleaded them as parties to the writ petition.
By means of a supplementary counter affidavit the respondents have stated that the petitioner is getting the revised pay-scale from time to time and has also been paid all his increments and ACP w.e.f. 1.7.2014. The petitioner was initially appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.400-615 on the technical post of Soil Assistant, which is a non UGC post and since his appointment is without following the procedure of appointment, therefore, he could not be granted the benefit of UGC pay-scale. Before coming into existence of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Kanpur all employees working in the Agriculture Institute had submitted the resignation and the Research Assistants, who opted for University service, were given UGC pay-scale, while the petitioner joined the University when the post of Research Assistant was already in existence in the University.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Rajesh Mohan Shukla, reported in 2007 LawSuit (SC) 835, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows :
Now, these appeals have come up for hearing. We find that the nature of duties being discharged by the Youth Coordinators who have come on deputation and have been absorbed as such and those who were directly recruited on fixed term are discharging the same duties. The only difference is their source of recruitment. Once the deputationists are discharging the same duties and are being paid salary and other allowances then there is no reason to deny the same benefits who are discharging the same duties and functions. Those deputationists now absorbed obtained the order from this Court but the direct recruits did not approach this Court, they were treated as a class apart because of their source of recruitment. Once these persons are already working for more than two decades discharging the same functions and duties then we see no reason why the same benefit should not be given to the respondents. Looking to the nature and duties of these respondents we are of opinion that there is no reason to treat them differently. However, at the time of admission this Court on 1.5.2000 confined the relief from the date of filing of the writ petition before the High Court. In fact, these directly recruited Youth Coordinators approached the Court in earlier point of time but they were advised to approach the Government and they did approach the Government but the Government denied them the same relief as was given to the deputationists. Therefore, there is no reason not to grant them the same scale pay and as such this Court at the time of admission has confined the relief that why it should not be granted from the date of the filing of the writ petition in the High Court. Accordingly, we dispose of these civil appeals with a direction that the same benefits as were being given to the Youth Coordinators who were initially on deputation and were absorbed, should be given to the respondents from the date of filing of the writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. Hence, the order of the High Court of Allahabad is affirmed with minor modification as indicated above. There would be no order as to costs.”
After hearing the rival submissions and going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra), it is clear that the petitioner is claiming the pay parity with the similarly situated employees working on the post of Field Assistant / Soil Assistant.
There is no denial in the counter affidavit that the duties being performed by the petitioner are in any way different or inferior from the service being rendered by the similarly situated other employees. In the counter affidavit there is no averment that the employees, who are working along with the petitioner on the same post are discharging duties which are superior than that of the petitioner and therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be denied. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra) also fortifies the case of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 20.12.1993 and 25.09.1995 passed by respondent no.1 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to pay parity with the other employees working on the post of Field Assistant / Soil Assistant. The difference in salary shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner from the date any junior employee of the petitioner was paid the grade of Rs.500- 900 along with 7 percent interest till the date of actual payment.
Writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.03.2018 SS