JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The writ petitioners (Respondents No. 1 to 27 herein) are all employees of hostel wing of William Holland University College of appellant University and have been working there since long, on payment of fixed monthly salary. Besides its hostel wing, the William Holland University College had a tutorial wing, which is stated to have been closed down long back. The claim of the writ petitioners is that they should be paid the same salary as is being paid by the Allahabad University since 1996 to their counterpart employees in the hostel wing of Madan Mohan Malviya University College (known as and hereinafter referred to as the Hindu Hostel). With regard to such grievance the writ petitioners had filed several representations to the University as well as the State Government, pursuant to which the State Government rejected their claim vide order dated 27.6.2002. The writ petitioners thus filed writ petition No. 15395 of 2002 challenging the order dated 27.6.2002 of the State Government and also prayed that they should be paid the similar salary as was being paid to their counterparts employed in the Hindu Hostel.
2. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2005 and after quashing the order dated 27.6.2002 of the State Government, a direction was issued for payment of same wages to the writ petitioners as are being paid to the employees of the Hindu Hostel. Aggrieved by the said order this Special Appeal has been filed by the University of Allahabad.
3. We have heard Sri Ratnakar Bharti, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Shashi Natulan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Pandey on behalf of respondents-writ petitioners.
4. The case of the appellant-University is that the University does not have any liability for payment of salary to the employees of the hostel wing of William Holland University College, which is run and managed by a private Trust and the University has no control over management of such hostel or its employees. It has also been submitted that the petitioners cannot be equated with the employees of the Hindu Hostel, as in the latter case the management of the hostel had been taken over by the State Government and the State Government had, in the year 1996, also taken over the responsibility to make payment of salary to such, employees of the Hindu Hostel for certain period. It has also been urged that the University does not collect hostel fees from the inmates of the William Holland University College hostel nor is it involved in the running and management of the hostel, inasmuch as there are no posts which have been sanctioned by the University for such hostel wing of William Holland University College.
5. On the other hand the respondents-writ petitioners, claim that there is no difference between the hostel wing and the tutorial wing of William Holland University College and the appellant-University is illegally denying the benefit of payment of salary to the hostel wing employees, to which they are entitled. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners that they are similarly situated as the employees of Hindu Hostel and since such employees of Hindu Hostel are being paid salary by the University, they should also be given similar benefit and be paid same salary by the University. Their petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.
6. Under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a 'hall (or college) of a University' and 'hostel of a University' have been defined under Section 2(10) and (11) of the Act which read as under:
2(10): 'hall (or college) of a University' means a unit of residence for students maintained or recognised by the University at which provision is made for imparting tutorial and other supplementary instructions:
(11): 'hostel of a University' means a unit of residence for students maintained or recognised by the University, other than a hall, and 'hostel of an affiliated or associated college' means a unit of residence for students of that college;
(emphasis supplied)
7. From a banc reading of the aforesaid definitions it would be clear that a hall or a college of the University is to impart, tutorial and other supplementary instructions to the students whereas hostel of a University would be a unit (oilier than a hail) for residence of students maintained or recognized by the University. It would thus mean that hostel of a University could be maintained by the University itself or may be merely recognized by the University but not maintained by it. The admitted case of the parties is that hostel wing of William Holland University College is managed, maintained and run by an independent private Trust which has its own Committee of Management which is arrayed as Respondent No. 28 to this appeal. It is also not disputed that the University has no liability to manage or maintain such hostel. The hostel may be recognized by the University but mere recognition will not make the University liable for its maintenance and running and it is only the authority maintaining and running a hostel which would be liable to make payment of salary to its employees. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that the hostel fee which is collected from the inmates of the hostel is handed over to the University. If the argument, of the writ petitioners is accepted, men it would amount to a very strange situation where the income derived from the hostel through fees paid by the inmates would be that of the Committee of Management and the liability to pay the salary to the employees would be that of the University. Such a position is not conceived of in any provision of the University Statute applicable to this case. The University does not have any say hi the matter of engagement of any person by the Trust for managing its hostel wing nor does it regulate the number of employees who would be engaged for such purpose. Admittedly there is no post sanctioned by the University for the purposes of hostel wing of William Holland University College and thus there would be no budgetary provision for payment of salary to such employees engaged by the Trust to run the hostel. As such, the submission of the respondents-writ petitioners that the University would be liable to make payment of salary to the writ petitioners on the basis that they would be treated as employees of University, cannot be accepted.
8. Section 60-E of the Act reads as follows:
60-E. Liability in respect of Salary.- (1) The State Government shall be liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every college due in respect of any period after March 31, 1975.
(2) The State Government may recover any amount in respect of which any liability is incurred by it under Sub-section (1) by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the college as if that amount were an arrear of land revenue due from such college.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to derogate from the liability of the college for any such dues to the teacher or employee.
9. Section 60-A(i) of the Act defines 'college' which reads as under:
" College" means any college affiliated to or recognised by any University in accordance with the provision 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.
10. Thus, under the Act, the liability for payment of salary to the teachers and employees of every college, as defined under the Act, would be that of the State Government. This cannot mean to include the salaries to be paid to employees of the hostel merely recognized (and not managed) by the University. The definition of 'hall (or college) of a University' as given in Section 2(10) of the Act is different from the definition of 'hostel wing of a college' of a University. The latter would not come within the definition of a college under Section 60-A of the Act also, unless it has been receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. In the present case, no such maintenance grant is said to be given by the State Government to the hostel wing of William Holland University College. Thus the hostel wing of a college cannot be equated with the hall or college of a university for the purposes of payment of salary to the employees of the hostel wing of the college.
11. As regards the second submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners that they should be treated at par with the employees of the Hindu Hostel where the University has been making payment of salary to its employees, the same also cannot be accepted. The situation which led to the University or the State Government making payment of salary to such employees of Hindu Hostel is quite different from that of William Holland University College. The arrangement for making payment to the employees of the Hindu Hostel was due to the fact that in the year 1976-77 the employees of its hostel wing were not being paid by the management of Madan Mohan Malviya University College due to non realisation of hostel fee from the inmates of the hostel, and thus the employees were agitating for the same and in such a situation the State Government, after considering the condition of the employees, released certain grant for payment of their salary.
12. It has also come on record that on 23.7.1999 certain agreement was entered into between the Trust managing the Hindu Hostel and the University administration to the effect that administrative and financial control shall be taken over by the University. In pursuance thereof, all the revenue receipts of Hindu Hostel were deposited in the University account. It was in such circumstances that the University or the State Government had under such arrangement, taken over the liability of payment of salary to the employees of Hindu Hostel. The respondents-writ petitioners do not say that there was any such arrangement made between the University and the hostel wing of William Holland University College. They had taken the employment with the hostel wing on the terms as had been offered by the management of hostel, which is a private Trust. As such they cannot now claim to get the salary which is being paid to other employees of other hostels which have either been taken over by the University or where the University has always been managing such hostel.
13. The employers of the two hostels are different. Their terms of employment are also different. The employment given to the writ petitioners was totally private and had no concern with the University. For whatever reason, certain arrangements had been made in the case of employees of Hindu Hostel, and the State Government took upon itself the responsibility to make the payment of salary to such employees, along with the administrative and financial control of such hostel. The financial and administrative control of the hostel wing of William Holland University College is still retained by the Trust, which manages and runs the hostel. The Trust decides how many employees are to be engaged, engages them, and takes work from them. How can some other body (i.e. the University) be saddled with the liability of payment to the employees without it (the University) even having any control over the management and running of the hostel, which is in the exclusive domain of the Trust running the hostel. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would thus not apply in the present case.
14. The two cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners, namely, Randhir Singh. Union of India and Nehru Yitka Kendra Sangaihan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla 2007 (6) AJD 487 (SC), in support of his submission that the writ-petitioners would be entitled to salary from the University on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' arc distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case.
15. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2005 passed by learned Single Judge is quashed and the writ petition stands dismissed.