CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5588 1993 PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: G.RAMAKISHAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2000 BENCH: D.P.Mohapatro, S.V.Patil JUDGMENT:
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
J U D G M E N T
D.P. MOHAPATRA,J.
The respondents herein, who were Post- Graduate
students of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University,
filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.16050 of 1991)
against the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the
Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department (Agrl.III), and
the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, represented by
the Registrar, challenging the Government Order i.e.
G.O.Ms.No.742 dated 3rd December, 1990, in which the date
from which they are entitled to stipend at the enhanced rate
was specified and sought a direction to the respondents to
pay the enhanced rate of stipend to them from 1st October,
1989 as in the case of Post-Graduate students of Medical
Colleges in the State. It is the case of the writ
petitioners that prior to the issue of the afore-mentioned
Government Order, Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural
University were receiving stipend at the rates of Rs.1,000/-
per month during the first year, Rs.1,100/- per month during
the second year and Rs.1,200/- per month in the third year,
same as in the case of the Post-Graduate students of Medical
Colleges. By the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.655, Health,
Medical and Family Welfare (E-II) Department dated 26th
December, 1989, considering the representation made by the
Andhra Pradesh Junior Doctors Association, the rates of
stipend were enhanced to Rs.1,500/- per month for first year
students, Rs.1,900/- per month for second year students and
Rs.2,000/- per month for third year students with a
direction that the order of enhancement was to take effect
from 1st October, 1989. A similar enhancement of the rate
of stipend was made by the G.O.Ms.No.742, Food and
Agriculture (Agrl.III) Department, for the Post-Graduate
students of the Agricultural University but the order was
given effect from 3rd December, 1990. The case of the writ
petitioners was that the State Government had always treated
the Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural University at
par with the Post- Graduate students of Medical Colleges in
the matter of stipend and there was no rational basis to
make a difference regarding the effective date from which
the enhanced rates of stipend will be paid to the Post
Graduate students of the Agricultural University on this
occasion. The respondents in the writ petition, denying the
claim of the writ petitioners, contended inter alia that it
is not correct to assume that the State Government was all
along treating the Post-Graduate students of the
Agricultural University at par with the Post-Graduate
students of Medical Colleges simply because the rates of
stipend paid to the two groups of Post-Graduate students
happened to be the same. According to the respondents,
there was no comparison between the writ petitioners and the
Post- Graduate students of Medical Colleges since the nature
of studies, research work and practical duty done by them
are not similar. It was further contended on behalf of the
respondents in the writ petition that the writ petitioners
represented their case to the State Government for
enhancement of the rate of stipend and the State Government,
after due consideration of the case of the petitioners and
the Post-Graduate students of Medical Colleges, passed the
order enhancing the rate of stipend with effect from
different dates. A single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, vide judgment dated 28th April, 1992, allowed the
writ petition granting the relief sought. The learned Judge
observed : It is very vaguely stated in the counter that
nothing prevents the petitioners to make a representation to
the Government. That is not a valid answer. No
intelligible differentia has been pointed out by the 1st
respondent to discriminate the petitioners from that of the
medical post-graduates. As such, the action of the 1st
respondent in depriving the petitioners of the increased
stipend amounts on par with medical post-graduates with
effect from 1-10-1989 results in invidious discrimination
infracting fundamental right of equality before law and
equal protection of laws enshrined under Article 14 of
Indian Constitution.
Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh filed an appeal (W.A.S.R.No.29437 of 1993)
challenging the same. A Division Bench of the High Court,
by the judgment dated 7th July, 1993, dismissed the appeal
on the ground of being grossly barred by time. The Division
Bench of the High Court, on perusal of the condonation of
delay petition (W.A.M.P.No.815 of 1993) filed by the
appellant, held The facts referred to above clearly
establish that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning
the inordinate delay of 365 days in filing the appeal.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The said order is
under challenge in this appeal filed by the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The respondents have not appeared despite service
of notice on them. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant. We have also perused the judgment of the learned
single Judge, the judgment passed by the Division Bench and
the other relevant records included in the paper book. It
is our considered view that on the pleadings of the parties,
the learned single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that
the State Government failed to show that there was any
reasonable basis or intelligible differentia for giving
effect to the enhanced rates of stipend for the
Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural University from a
date different from the effective date of the Post- Graduate
students of the Medical Colleges, particularly when it was
the specific case of the writ petitioners that the State
Government had all along maintained parity in the matter of
stipend paid to the Post-Graduate students of both the
institutions. On this occasion also regarding the rates of
stipend payable to Post-Graduate students in the two
institutions was maintained. However, a differentiation was
made in so far as the date with effect from which the
benefit of the enhanced rates will be available; while in
case of Post-Graduate students of Medical Colleges, the
benefit was extended with effect from an anterior date in
the case of Post-Graduate students of the Agricultural
University, the benefit was extended from a date subsequent
thereto. This departure from the parity in the matter
between the two groups of Post-Graduate students, which had
admittedly been maintained all along, was assailed as
arbitrary and discriminatory. When the action of the
Government was challenged on the ground of arbitrariness and
discrimination it was for the Government to plead
justification for fixing the two different dates in the
matter. It neither stated in the pleadings any reasonable
or rational basis for giving effect to the enhanced rate of
stipend with effect from different dates nor did it place
any material before the Court in that regard. For this
purpose it is of no relevance that courses of studies of the
Post- Graduate students in the two institutions and the
nature of practical duty done by them are different, for the
reason that the matter under challenge related to the date
with effect from which the enhanced stipend is to be paid to
Post-Graduate students of Agricultural University. In such
circumstance the learned single Judge cannot be faulted for
having taken the view that the action of the State
Government in the matter was not supported by any rational
basis or intelligible differentia. The Division Bench, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant herein. In the result,
the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs.