JUDGMENT
Lentin, J.
1. Medical teachers in the municipal medical colleges in Greater Bombay, being as much municipal employees as any other, are likewise entitled to leave travel assistance (L.T.A.). Such is the ratio of this judgment.
2. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay runs three medical colleges and one dental college in Greater Bombay. Medical teachers are employed in those colleges. They are full-time employees of the Corporation. They are but a handful compared to the Corporation’s remaining employees.
3. In 1976 the Corporation revised the pay scales of all its employees including medical teachers. On April 29, 1977 the Medical Council of India passed a Resolution that all medical teachers in all the affiliated medical colleges should be given the University Grants Commission (UGC) scales of pay, plus clearness allowance (D.A.), house rent allowance (H.R.A.), city living allowance (C.L.A.) and non practicing allowance (N.P.A.). The Resolution was accepted by the State Government on October 12, 1977 insofar as scales stated therein.
4. On September 4, 1978 the Corporation passed a Resolution applying the UGC scale of pay and allowances to the medical teachers with effect from October 1, 1977.
5. However, in the meanwhile, after all the requisite mechanics were gone through, the Corporation issued a Circular dated July 15, 1978 withholding L.T.A. to the medical teaching staff. This Circular was challenged by the Senior Medical Teachers’ Association and others by way of a writ petition. They succeeded before the learned single Judge. Hence the present appeal by the Corporation.
6. The thrust of the arguments advanced by the Corporation’s learned Counsel Mr. Damania is that the medical teachers had exercised an option given to them to choose on the one hand between the Corporation’s existing scales of pay and allowances and the UGC’s scales of pay and allowances on the other. In Mr. Damania’s colourful, though dietary, turn of phrase, a basket of fruits of monetary benefits in the form of out-of-turn revision of wages, D.A., H.R.A., C.L.A, and N.P.A. was offered to the medical teachers, and at the same time another basket of (no doubt equally exotic) fruits comprising of existing benefits plus the revised leave travel concession was offered to the medical teachers. Thus, says Mr. Damania the medical teachers were given the choice of picking one offering or the other. Mr. Damania continues that the medical teachers voluntarily opted for the more sumptuous first basket and having done so, they were not entitled to approach the Court by way of a writ petition.
7. While we note the benefits offered by the Corporation as metaphorised by its learned Counsel, we are not inclined to agree with him when he says that the medical teachers were given or exercised any option. This is a red herring laid across the trail for the first time by way of an ipse dixit in the Corporation’s affidavit-in-reply before the learned single Judge. On the contrary, as will appear presently, documentary evidence brings to the fore that the medical teachers were faced with a fait accompli.
8. To start with, it is not in dispute that the medical teachers were kept out of L.T.A. only on the ground that their pay scales were governed by UGC, as a result whereof they were purportedly not entitled to the benefit of service conditions applicable to other municipal employees. The fallacy of this is obvious, namely that admittedly the medical teachers are themselves as much municipal employees as any other. We see no reason why if the latter are to be given the benefit of L.T.A., the former should be deprived of it. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander.
9. Coming to the documentary evidence, there is on record a letter dated April 22, 1978 from the Municipal Commissioner to the Standing Committee wherein the reason given for withholding the leave travel assistance to the medical teachers is to avoid “circular reaction”, meaning thereby that if L.T.A. was to be given to medical teachers in the employment of the Corporation, then a similar demand would also be made by Government medical teachers.
10. Thus, in order to pre-empt Government medical teachers from making a, demand for L.T.A., a handful of medical teachers in the employment of the Corporation were denied L.T.A. and yet the very same benefit was given to all the other employees of the Corporation. The entire approach of the Corporation is fallacious.
11. There is also on record a Resolution dated May 23, 1978 of the Standing Committee which states that L.T.A. scheme is not applicable inter alia to medical teaching staff with effect from October 1, 1977. This Resolution is a sequel to the Commissioner’s letter dated April 22, 1978 to the Standing Committee. If as stated earlier, the basis for withholding L.T.A. to the medical teachers as stated in the Commissioner’s letter dated April 22, 1978 is fallacious, the Standing Committee’s Resolution dated May 23, 1978 can avail the Corporation nothing. The same observations must also apply to the Corporation’s Resolution dated June 23, 1978 giving L.T.A, to all municipal employees except the medical teaching staff and secondary school staff (the latter category not being germane for the purpose of this appeal).
12. It is not without its own significance that in the impugned Circular dated July 15, 1978, the reason given for withholding L.T.A. from the medical teachers is that they are on a par with their counterparts in the State Government, This reason does not cater to the obvious, namely that whatever be the difference in the pay scales between the medical teachers (who are municipal employees) and their counterparts in the State Government, the medical teachers continue to remain municipal employees and hence must be governed by the terms and conditions of service of municipal employees including their right to receive, L.T.A. like any other municipal employee. There is no reason why this benefit should be given to all municipal employees and yet be withheld from the medical teachers despite the fact that they too are municipal employees. Discrimination on this ground is therefore writ large.
13. There is yet another facet of discrimination. The impugned Circular of July 15, 1978 gives the reason why municipal employees have been given L.T.A., namely to enable them to travel with their families to places of their choice for “recouperation of health and refreshing themselves”. Thus, while they can do so, and good luck to them, medical teachers who are also municipal employees need neither travel with their families nor do they need “recouperation of health and refreshing themselves,” This is inverted logic smacks as it does of discrimination between the medical teachers who are municipal employees and the other municipal employees who are not medical teachers.
14. Therefore, the Corporation’s Resolution insofar as it pertains to the exclusion of medical teachers from the benefit of L.T.A. has been rightly set aside by the learned single Judge.
15. The respondents before us have filed cross-objections from the decision of the learned single Judge who has given them L.T.A. from April 1, 1980 instead of April 1, 1978 on the ground of want of budgetary provision.
16. In support of the cross-objections the respondents’ learned Counsel Mr. Singhvi is correct when he says that if other municipal employees have been given L.T.A. from April 1, 1978 then why not the medical teachers who also are municipal employees. No answer is forthcoming from Mr. Damania except that the finances of the Corporation “are what they are”. That is no answer, such as it is.
17. We pass the following order:–
18. The appeal is dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed. Rule which had been made absolute by the learned single Judge shall be with effect from April 1, 1978 instead of April 1, 1980. Mr. Singhvi does not press for costs. Each party to bear his own costs.
19. By reason of the fact that by an order passed by this Court on June 25, 1981. medical teachers could not take advantage of the L.T.A. scheme, the Corporation is directed to pay the monetary benefits due to the medical teachers from April 1, 1978, within 3 months from the date of claims being made for the same, by each of the medical teachers.