JUDGMENT
U.P. Singh, J.
1. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents concerned to regularise their services as Lecturers in the Bihar Institute of Silk and Textiles, Bhagalpur, Since they are performing the same functions as that of the regular lecturers, they have claimed payment of the same salary and allowances which are being paid to regular and permanent lecturers from the date of their continuous-employment.
2. The Bihar Institute of Silk and Textiles, Bhagalpur, was started in the year 1922 in the name of Government Silk Institute and continued until 1978, During those days, one certificate course in Sericulture, Silk Weaving and Silk Dyeing-Printing was being conducted for the Matriculates who were utilised by the Government for managing different schemes in lower cadre. During the earlier period, besides imparting training, the Institute was functioning as a nuclear point for planning and steering of all Sericulture and Silk Programmes of this State. Considering the paucity of highly qualified teachncial persons in the State and Industries as a whole, the Government decided to upgrade this Institute by converting it into a Technological Institute to impart four years degree course in B. Sc. Silk Technology. The Institute is under the administrtive control of the Government of Bihar, Department of Industries. The Academic, Examination and Degree works are being carried by the Bhagalpur University. For imparting complete knowledge both in theory and practical, the Institute is well equipped with laboratories and qualified teachers.
3. In course of time, the Institute felt the need of qualified teachers in Physics, Chemistry and Economics. Accordingly, the Institute informed the Director about the requirement of teachers in the aforementioned subjects. The State Government, thereafter, authorised the Bhagalpur University to make such appointments. The Vice-Chancellor asked the Heads of Departments of Physics, Chemistry and Economics of the Bhagalpur University for appointment of suitable candidates as lecturers in those subjects. The Head of Department of Physics, Bhagalpur University, recommended names of five candidates, including petitioner No. 1 of C.W.J.C. No. 5409 of 1987, for the posts of lecturer in Physics. Similarly, different names were recommended for appointment of lecturers in Economics and Chemistry subjects. Petitioner No. 1 holds Post-Graduate Degree in Physics from the Bhagalpur University. He completed his Post Graduation in the year 1976 and thereafter, he was appointed as a Research Scholar in the University itself. Since he was already working as a Research Scholar, the Acting Vice-Chancellor recommended his name to the Director for being appointed as lecturer in Physics. While the name of one Miss Kaina Chatterjee was recommended for her appointment as lecturer in Economics. The Director approved the name pf petitioner No. 1, and, accordingly, he was appointed as lecturer in Physics, though he was to get only Rs. 20 per lecture vide letter dated 28th December, 1978, marked Annexure-1. Petitioner No. 1 started working since 2nd January, 1979. AU on a sudden, the Principal of the Institute, on the basis of a direction of respondent No. 2, asked petitioner No. 1 not to take his classes. He, therefore, filed a Title Suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge for a declartion that the said letter dated the 5th April, 1980, was illegal and inoperative and prayed for restraining the defendants from implementing the said letter. On 4th June, 1980, the Subordinate Judge granted an interim injunction and, finally, by his judgment dated 22nd December, 1984, the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner No. 1. Thus, petitioner No. 1 continuously worked as lecturer since 2nd January, 1979, till date and without any break.
4. Petitioner No. 2 was similarly recommended by the Head of Department of Chemistry, Bhagalpur University, along with two others and he was appointed as a lecturer on a temporary basis in Chemistry, He joined the poston 28th August, 1981, vide Annexure-3 and since then he is continuously working as lecturer without any break. Petitioner No. 2 completed his Post Graduation in Chemistry from the Bhagalpur University in the Session 1975-77. He completed his Ph.D. in 1984 and, before his appointment as lecturer, he had also been working as Research Scholar in the said University.
5. Petitioner No. 3 was recommended for the post of Lecturer in Economics which fell vacant after Miss Kaina Chatterjee resigned and left Bhagalpur. After obtaining the approval from respondent No. 2, petitioner No. 3 was appointed and he joined the post of lecturer in Economics on 16th December, 1981. Since then, he has been working continuously as lecturer without any break. He completed his Post Graduation in Economis from the Bhagalpur University in the Session 1977-79. He got his M.A. degree in Rural Economics in 1983 and he also holds LL.B. degree from the said University.
6. The sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1568 was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 9th September, 1983, on a remuneration of Rs. 20 per lecture and since then she has been working as such. She obtained Post Graduate degree in Rural Economics from the Bhagalpur University having passed her M.A. examination in the first class. She obtained Honours degree in Economics from the Bihar University and she has been performing the same type of work which is being performed by other permanent Lecturers.
7. Thus, all the petitioners possessed. Honours degrees in their respective subjects and have been teaching students. Having possessed all the necessary qualifications and imparting education to the satisfaction of all concerned they are still getting a remuneration of only Rs. 20 per lecture, while the lecturers promoted from the posts of instructors are getting the prescribed scale of pay of Rs. 880-1570. The petitioners are performing the same duties and functions which are being performed by other lecturers who have been promoted from the posts of instructors, on permanent basis. On these facts, it has been contended by Mr. Tara Kant J ha, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that there is no reason for making any discrimination between the petitioners and those other lecturers who are performing the same duties and functions and there is no justification for adopting two different standards in respect of the payment of their salary.
8. It may be mentioned that the products of the Institute, taught by these petitioners, were appointed as Assistant Supervisors by the Government and were put on deputation to the Institute as Lecturers in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1300. It is relevant to notice that, prior to the upgradation of the Institute, there were instructors who were working as teachers and those instructors were promoted to the posts of lecturers after the Institute was converted into a Technology Institute to impart four years degree course in B.Sc. Silk Technology. Until now, no direst appointment of lecturer has been made. Since long, the petitioners have been representing their case before the authorities for absorption as lecturers on permanent basis. All the time, they have been pressing upon the authorities that they should be paid the prescribed scale of pay which has been made available to permanent lecturers. Respondent No. 2 assured that their grievances would be met and their services would be regularised but until now nothing has been done. Impressed by their performance, the Principal of the Institute has been recommending their case to respondent No. 2 for their absorption and he pointed out that these petitioners had to labour hard because of lack of adequate number of hands,, Even then, the Government is neither regularising their services nor giving them the prescribed pay scale rather they are sitting right over the matter. The petitioners wore expecting that their services would be regularised and now they have crossed the age limit prescribed for any appointment and are not eligible for appointment in any other Government service.
9. An Assistant in the Industries Department has filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent State and the only stand taken is that the petitioners were neither appointed on. a temporary basis nor on ad hoc basis, rather they were engaged as lecturers on contract basis in the Bihar Silk and Textiles Institute, Bhagalpur, to take classes at the rate of Rs. 20 per lecture and, therefore, the question of regularising their services did not arise. They having agreed to the contractual terms and conditions, were allowed by the Principal of the Institute to take classes at the rate of Rs. 20 per lecture, Instructores are permanent Government employees and, as such, they earned their promotion and increments as and when it fell due in normal course of their service conditions. Their claim of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is unjustified since some of the wholetime permanent lecturers of different colleges/departments under the Bhagalpur University have also been engaged on contract basis to take classes on payment of Rs. 20 per lecture. These assertions in the counter-affidavit have been further refuted in reply thereto riled by these petitioners.
10. In the appointment letters of petitioners 1 and 2 of C.W.J.C. No. 5409 of 1987 contained in Annexures t and 3 as also that of petitioner No. 3 contained in Annexure 10, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis. This statement was for the first time made in the counter-affidavit. Petitioner No. 3 started working as lecturer in the Institute since 16th December, 1981, and he was permitted to continue on the said post, till regular appointment was made. This is obvious from the letter No. 278, dated 25th May 1982, contained in Annexure-10, wherein the nature of appointment has been described as temporary. Had the appointment been on contract basis, the Principal of the Institute would not have recommended their case for regularising their services. Vide Memo No. 706, dated 17th August, 1985 contained in Annexure-11, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Warden of the Hostel. In September, 1982, he had been made incharge of games. He was recommmended for apoointment on the post of Senior Research Officer by the Principal of the Institute and in these remmendations he was described as lecturer. Vide letter dated 14th January, 1983, contained in Annexure-13a, the Principal of the institute requested the Secretary of the University Grants Commission to approve or grant of Rs. 4500 for the purpose of carrying out small research project for which petitioner No. 1 had applied. In the said letter, petitioner No. 1. was described as lecturer in the department of Physics. Both petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed invigilators in the University examinations by order of a competent authority. There, also, both the petitioners were described as lecturers. Petitioner No. 1 was also appointed External Examiner vide letter dated 5th May, 1986, contained in Annexure-16. Thus, the petitioners were assigned different duties in different capacities to carry out various programmes held in the College treating them at par with permanent lecturers.
11. Thus, the allegation that the petitioners agreed to work on contract basis has been categorically denied as false. The University as also the Principal of the Institute had made several requests to sanction the posts held by the petitioners. The University had constituted a Committee for the purpose of permanent affiliation as also to examine the requirement of the Institute in the matter of posts, etc. The Committee inspected the college in February, 1986, and suggested for sanction of two posts in Physics; three posts in Chemistry ; and one post in Economics. It also recommended for sanctioning different other posts. This report was sent to the Director by the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 23rd March, 1986, marked An-nexure-19. In spite of all these recommendations, the Government is sitting idle over the matter.
12. There is no denial of the fact that the first petitioner is continuously working as Lecturer since 2nd January, 1979, till dated and without any break. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as lecturer on a temporary basis and he joined on 28th August, 1981, and is continuously working as lecturer since then without any break and petitioner No. 3 joined the post of lecturer in Economics on 16th December, 1981, and since then he has been working continuously as lecturer without any break. Likewise, the sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1568 of 1988 was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 9th September, 1988, on the remuneration of Rs. 20 per lecture and since then she has been working continuously and without any break. Therefore, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable from the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India. * * * * If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the respondents could deny to those petitioners the same salary and conditions of service which have been granted other lecturers regularly appointed. It is peculiar on the part of the respondents to urge that these petitioners took up employment knowing fully well that they would be paid only Rs. 20 per lecture and, therefore, they cannot claim more. A welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. In this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these petitioners accepted the employment with full knowledge that they would be paid only Rs. 20 per lecture and they would not get the same salary and conditions of service as granted to other Lecturers, cannot provide an escape to the respondents to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These petitioners, who are admittedly performing the same duties as those of other lecturers must, therefore, get the same salary and conditions of service as granted to other lecturers. Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Central Government the State Government and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enfored in a court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State undertakings.
13. The petitioners’ services could not be exploited by the employer by giving a meagre remuneration of Rs. 20 per lecture. The petitioners are equally qualified and experienced lecturers. On one hand, the Government has been crying hoarse about the democratic and socialist principle to be followed but the present one is a case of utter violation of the said principle. The Government is not expected to act in a manner similar to that of a private capitalist and the full trained and competent lecturers like the petitioners could not be exploited to impart education on a remuneration of Rs. 20 per lecture. I see no reason why, on the facts of the present case, the petitioners could not be absorbed as Lecturers on permanent basis who have been performing the same functions and duties as those of other permanent Lecturers who are being given the prescribed scale of salary for Lecturers against those posts. Their cases for such absorption as lecturers on permanent basis was recommended by the Principal of the Institute from time to time. The principal of the Institute, while recommending their case for absorption to respondent No. 2, impressed upon him that, these petitioners labourer hard because of lack of adequate number of hands in the Institute and he was impressed by their performance as teachers in the said Institute. In not taking such steps for regularising their services and the long silence maintained by the Government in this respect in not giving them the prescribed pay scale is denial of social justice, in order so defeat their claim, a false stand was taken for the first time in the counter-affidavit that their appointment was contractual on a remuneration of Rs. 20 per lecture. The same has been categorically denied by the petitioners. The petitioners have crossed their age limit for any other Government service and, there being no adverse report against their conduct as Lecturer for all these years in this Institute. I am left with no option but to direct respondent No. 2 to regularise the services of the petitioners as Lecturers in the Bihar Institute of Silk and Textiles, Bhagalpur, with the same salary and allowances which are being paid to regular and permanent Lecturers.
14. In the result, both the applications are allowed with the directions indicted above. The respondents shall pay cost of Rs. 1000 to each of the petitioners.