JUDGMENT
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners-employees of respondent No. 2-Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, working as Senior Research Assistants have sought deletion of condition of five years experience imposed for getting pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 in the same cadre.
2. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are duly qualified and have been selected as Senior Research Assistants on the basis of Post Graduate Degree i.e. M.Sc. (Agriculture) held by them. It is stated that before pay revision, as per recommendations of Bhole Pay Commission’s Report, the pay scale of Senior Research Assistants was Rs. 275-480 and that of Desk Officer was Rs. 260-430. The pay scale of Desk Officer after 1976 has been revised to Rs. 600-1150. The pay scale of Senior Research Assistants stood revised to Rs. 500-900 initially and thereafter to Rs. 550-900 from 1-5-1981. The higher pay scale of Rs. 680-1250 was provided for those Senior Research Assistants who held educational qualification of Master’s degree with at least second class in relevant subject and five years experience in research with identifiable research contribution. The said pay-scale was prescribed from 1-8-1981. It is to be noted that at that time, the Junior Research Assistants were drawing their salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 395-800. The eligibility qualification for Junior Research Assistants was B.Sc. (Agriculture) while for Senior Research Assistants, according to the petitioner, it was M.Sc. (Agriculture). The petitioner has also pointed out that eligibility qualification for the post of Assistant Professor was M.Sc. The case of the petitioners is that condition of five years experience in research as imposed by accompanyment to Government Resolution dated 7-8-1981 giving details of revised pay-scale is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is their contention that the petitioners should be placed in said pay-scale from the beginning itself i.e. from the date on which they become Senior Research Assistants and the said pay-scale was made applicable to their post. In other words, the petitioners contend that instead of pay-scale of Rs. 500-900 or Rs. 550-900, pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 should be made applicable to them by ignoring this condition. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the recommendations of the Vice Chancellor Coordination Committee Meeting held on 18-2-1988 to point out that a Senior Research Assistant appointed in pay-scale of Rs. 550-25-900 reaches the stage of Rs. 675/- after five years which is nearer to Rs. 680, which is to be given after getting five years experience. The petitioners also contend that as a matter of fact, identifiable research work is not prescribed for any higher post and they also rely upon this proceeding of Co-ordination Committee meeting for that purpose. It is also their contention that the Desk Officer who was drawing salary in pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 has been placed in pay-scale of Rs. 600-1150 as a effect of 1976 Bhole Pay Revision while the Senior Research Assistant has been placed in much lower pay-scale of Rs. 500-900 or 550-900 though their pay prior to wage revision was Rs. 275-480 i.e. more than that of Desk Officer. It is contended that this is arbitrary and this arbitrariness is continued by imposing condition of acquiring five years experience to enable petitioners to claim pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. Thus, this arbitrariness is also pointed out to support their prayers for deletion of said condition of experience.
3. Lastly, the petitioners also state that an Assistant Professor who enters service with same educational qualification does only teaching job and the petitioners who are Senior Research Assistants do teaching as also job of research. According to the petitioners, therefore, the job of petitioners is more responsible and onerous and hence the pay-scales prescribed for Assistant Professor must at least be extended to the petitioners. The said pay-scales for Assistant Professors are Rs. 680-1250 or Rs. 700-1600. The petitioners give this as one more reason to support their stand that if the condition of five years is deleted, they will be placed in pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250.
4. We have heard Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Wandile, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Smt. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in the matter.
5. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners after narrating the facts as mentioned above contended that the requirement imposed vide above mentioned document i.e. accompanying to Government Resolution dated 7-8-1981 is arbitrary. He takes hypothetical example and argues that if there are two equally situated students who have passed their B.Sc. (Agri.) examination in 1976 and one of them joins the services of respondent No. 2 immediately while the other continues to prosecute his studies and acquires Post Graduation degree i.e. M.Sc. in 1978 and thereafter joins the services of respondent No. 2, the effect of impugned condition will be anomalous. He argues that the person with B.Sc. qualification who has joined as Junior Research Assistant will be putting in five years of service by 1981 and in 1981 he becomes eligible to claim pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. He states that a person who has passed M.Sc. in 1978 and has joined services in 1978, will continue to draw his salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 500-900 or Rs. 550-900 for a period of five years i.e. up to 1983 and therefore in case such Junior Research Assistant is promoted to the cadre of Senior Research Assistant in the meanwhile, the Junior Research Assistant will receive more salary than the other student who has obtained Post Graduate degree qualification and thereafter joined the service in 1978. He argues that therefore the person who is senior in the cadre of Senior Research Assistant will be put to prejudice because he has obtained five years experience after Junior Research Assistant who joined service earlier. He contends that this is not the object of condition as imposed and therefore this condition is liable to be deleted. He points out that because of this condition only, the pay-scale which is much lower than that of Desk Officer has become applicable to the petitioners and prejudice has been caused to them. He further states that though the Assistant Professors are getting some more pay-scale, the petitioners are not getting pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 because of this condition. He argues that the moment this condition is removed, the petitioners will get their salary in pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 and their grievance will stand ventilated. He has also invited attention to the minutes of the Vice Chancellor Co-ordination Committee meeting held on 20-7-1992 to point out that the question of five years experience in Research Assistant with identifiable research work was considered therein and it has been resolved that higher pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 was to be made applicable to Senior Research Assistants who possess B.Sc. (Agri.) degree plus M.Sc. (Agri.) degree with total five years experience in University service. According to him, therefore, the experience is being counted from the stage at which the person joins the services even as Junior Research Assistant i.e. even prior to his becoming Senior Research Assistant and therefore, the anomaly is created. He, therefore points out that in the meeting held on 18-2-1988, the said Co-ordination Committee recommended that this condition of experience of five years service should be dispensed with.
6. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the post of Senior Research Assistant is not sanctioned by the University Grants Commission but it has been created by the State Government because of satisfaction of State Government about the working and necessity of that post in agricultural and non-agricultural universities after reviewing the work of that post with Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University (S.N.D.T. University). He states that it is a deemed University and said University for the first time created that post and after seeing the working of that post, the State Government has sanctioned and created that post in other Universities also. He contends that this requirement of five years experience is not prescribed by S.N.D.T. itself and the Senior Research Assistants working with it are not subjected to any such condition. He has also invited attention to Circular dated 1-10-1988 by the State Government by which Senior Research Assistants drawing pay scale of Rs. 680-1250 having Post Graduate qualification were given pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500. He contends that even in this wage revision, the condition of experience of five years has not been prescribed by the State Government. He has also placed on record the proceedings of Sukthankar Committee in its 1997 Report. The said Committee was constituted by the Government to take decision about the anomalies which had occurred while revising the pay-scales of Government employees. He contends that as per the recommendations of said committee also this condition was not proposed. He has argued that the condition of five years experience as imposed has got nothing to do with higher pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 initially prescribed and hence the condition should be deleted.
7. As a second limb of his argument, he has invited Court’s attention to the fact that Assistant Professor is only doing the job of teaching while the petitioners are required to do both the jobs i.e. teaching as also research also. Hence, according to him, Senior Research Assistants who are doing more responsible job are entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 by ignoring the condition of experience of five years. He has in this respect invited attention to Annexure R-II filed by respondent No. 2 along with their return to point out that the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was existing pay-scale for all and it has been revised to Rs. 2000-3200 for others. He points out that the said pay for those with five years experience was Rs. 2000-3500 and after revision, it was hiked to Rs. 2200-3700. According to him, therefore, the requirement of five years experience with University is irrelevant for deciding whether to confer upon a person higher pay-scale of Rs. 2200-3700. He, therefore, states that taking into account all these issues, prayers made in the petition need to be allowed and respondents No. 1 and 2 should be directed to delete said condition of five years experience and to fix the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 and to give to them all consequential benefits accordingly. He clarifies that in due course of time, the petitioners have also satisfied said condition of five years experience and have been accordingly given the higher pay-scale. He argues that if said benefit is given to them from earlier date, the petitioners will be entitled to arrears. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel has also relied upon certain cases in support of his arguments, reference to which will be made little later in the body of the judgment.
8. Smt. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that the only prayers made in the petition are to delete the condition of five years experience for getting pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. She argues that fixing Desk Officer in pay-scale of Rs. 600-1150 has not been questioned in petition at any point of time and therefore those arguments cannot be considered by this Court. She has also argued that no equivalence with the Assistant Professors is claimed and therefore those arguments are also liable to be ignored. She points out from the return filed on record that M.Sc. is not the only relevant qualification to enable a person to become Research Assistant. She points out that the Statute No. 73 of respondent No. 2-University prescribes necessary qualification in this respect and those qualifications for the post of Senior Research Assistants are B.Sc. (Agri.) Degree in First Class with distinction or B.Sc. (Agri.) with at least second class with three years experience in respective subject of Junior Research Assistant or equivalent or M.Sc. (Agri.) Degree. She, therefore, contends that M.Sc. (Agri.) is only one of the qualification prescribed. It is her argument that in this background University thought it fit to give higher pay-scale to the persons who had five years experience as mentioned in accompaniment to Government Resolution dated 7-8-1981 and accordingly the wage has been given to such Senior Research Assistants by prescribing higher pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. It is her argument that as the experience required is of research with identifiable contribution, the research work done by such person even as Junior Research Assistant has been taken into account and accordingly the pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 has been conferred upon such person. She points out that it is not a case of the petitioners that they possessed such research experience and still they have been continued in the pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250. She has further stated that insofar as the post of Senior Research Assistant is concerned, their work is entirely different than that of Assistant Professors. She points out that post of senior Research Assistant is not sanctioned by the University Grants Commission but created by the University on account of sanction by the State Government. She has contended that there cannot be any comparison between these two cadres as there is vast difference between the job of a Assistant Professor and that of a Senior Research Assistant. She has stated that Senior Research Assistant has to assist the Assistant Professors in their research work whereas the Assistant Professors are directly responsible for teaching and research activity of department concerned. She contended that the pay-scales of Assistant Professors are determined and revised from time to time in pursuance of the recommendations of University Grants Commission and I.C.A.R. whereas the pay-scale of cadre of Research Assistants are determined and revised under the orders of State Government. According to her, therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners based upon the comparison of post of Research Assistant and Assistant Professors are misconceived. She states that the equivalence of qualification amongst them is a disputed question and cannot be gone into in this writ petition. She states that no case is, made out here for interference in this writ petition and the same needs to be dismissed.
9. Smt. Wandile, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 has stated that the petitioners have challenged the resolution of State Government dated 7-8-1981 in the petition which has been filed in the year 1991 and challenge is, therefore, belated. She has further contended that all persons who got benefit of said resolution have not been made parties and on that count also the petition is liable to be dismissed. In relation to the history of creation of post of Senior Research Assistants with all Universities at the instance of State Government, she contends that S.N.D.T. University is a private and deemed University and therefore the fact that it has not imposed condition of five years experience is not relevant and by itself cannot be used against State Government and it cannot be held that therefore the State Government is wrong in imposing such condition of experience while allowing higher scale to Senior Research Assistants. She has contended that the higher scale has been allowed for better experience and as such there is a rational behind the same. She has in support relied upon certain cases, reference to which again will be made during the course of this judgment.
10. After hearing all the Counsel for the parties, the position which in fact emerges is that a higher pay-scale of Rs. 2200-3700 has been sanctioned to senior Research Assistants for their earlier pay-scale of Rs. 2030-3500 if they are having Post Graduate qualification in second class with experience of five years with University. Thus, the experience of five years with University has been treated as a factor to distinguish and classify the Senior Research Assistants into two pay-scales. Even from the return, it is apparent that the Junior Research Assistants with total five years experience have been given higher pay scale by respondent No. 2 after they became Senior Research Assistants. A senior Senior Research Assistant already in said cadre on that day continued to draw wages in lower pay scale because he had not completed 5 years service. Total five years experience in university service is the norm applied as per minutes of Vice-Chancellors Co-ordination Committee dated 20-7-1982 and 18-2-1988. The order dated 5-10-1982 of respondent No. 2 on this subject clearly mentions that the requirement is “total 5 years experience in University service”. In this respect when the recruitment qualifications as prescribed by Statute No. 73 Appendix III of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Statute, 1990, are looked into, the qualifications are:
(1) B.Sc. (Agri.) degree in first division with distinction;
(2) B.Sc. (Agri.) with at least Ilnd class with three years experience in respective subject as Junior Research Assistant or its equivalent; and
(3) M.Sc. (Agri.) degree.
It is, therefore, apparent that a person with B.Sc. Degree in first division with distinction has been treated as equivalent to a person holding B.Sc. Degree in Second class with three years experience and similarly, a person with M.Sc. (Agri.) degree has also been treated as equivalent to person with B.Sc. (Agri.) second class with three years experience. Thus, a person with three years experience has been treated as equivalent with M.Sc. Degree holder for the purposes of recruitment to the post of Senior Research Assistant. In this respect, it is therefore clear that the person working as Junior Research Assistant for three years has been treated as equivalent to M.Sc. Degree and therefore has been made eligible for the post of Senior Research Assistant. The moment this fact becomes clear from the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Senior Research Assistant, it is clear that the experience of five years work and which has been taken into account for the purposes of higher pay-scale of Rs. 680-1250 as total experience i.e. even experience of post of Junior research Assistant cannot be legal and valid criterion for that purpose. It is, therefore, clear that the five years work and experience warranted by the Government Resolution dated 7-8-1981 will have to be in any case after expiry of said initial period of three years as Junior Research Assistant or in any case after the said Junior Research Assistant is selected and starts working as Senior Research Assistant. However, as the said issue has not been raised in present petition and as parties have not argued on the issue, we are not delivering any final verdict on it at this stage. This brings us to case law which has been cited by Shri Khapre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners.
11. The first case is in the case of P. Savita v. Union of India reported at . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Senior Draughtsman in Ministry of Defence Production were doing same work and discharging same functions and same job and they were classified into two groups-Higher salary was given to one group only on seniority-cum-fitness basis. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that grouping is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where all relevant considerations are same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. It is to be noted that in the facts of said case while giving wage revision of the Third Pay Commission, higher pay-scale was not prescribed on the basis of merit-cum-seniority but only on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and there was no denial anywhere that both these types of Draughtsman were doing the same work and discharging the same functions and duties. It has not been shown to us that post of Assistant Professors is in any case equivalent to the post of Senior Research Assistant. However, Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that by giving higher pay-scale to group of Senior Research Assistants, Article 14 has been violated. Here, it is clear that higher scale has been given only on the basis of total experience of five years and even by giving weightage to service in lower cadre. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that such higher scale could not have been given after taking into account services of incumbent even on lower post of Junior Research Assistant. It is, therefore, apparent that the higher pay-scale has been given only on account of experience i.e. length of service with employer and not on account of merit or due to length of service in the cadre of Senior Research Assistant. It is, therefore, clear that grant of such higher pay-scale on the basis of only length of total service with employer cannot be maintained.
12. The other ruling on which reliance has been placed is in the case of Ajay Jadhav v. Government of Goa reported at . There a full time teacher who was holding necessary qualification was given pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 by the management but approval to the same was turned down by the Director of Education, Goa. The said approval was rejected only on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of one year and the Apex Court has, after considering the Circular dated 20-11-1990, which prescribed that a candidate possessing qualification of Post Graduate degree must be permanent, held that the petitioner would be entitled to pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in Para 5 found that the said Circular was quashed by the High Court and it was found that the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was as per recommendations of NCERT and the petitioner was entitled to said pay-scale as per the circulars prescribed by the NCERT. The ruling, therefore, lays down that the stop-gap arrangement or fixed tenure appointment made by the management cannot be a consideration for denying the pay-scale of Rs. 1646-2900 and is not relevant. The last ruling on which reliance has been placed is in the case of State of U.P. v. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association reported at . It appears that there a controversy cropped up on account of implementation of recommendations of Second U.P. Pay Commission. The Trade Tax Officers who were carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750 at par with other District Level Officers in other departments of the State were fixed after revision in pay scale of Rs. 625-1240 while the other District Level Officers were fixed in Rs. 690-1420. The Hon’ble Apex Court has after taking into account the nature of the duties and functions of Trade Level Officers found that they are equal in rank with District Level Officers and have to be given revision of pay scales at par with other District Level Officers as both of them were earlier carrying the same pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750. The Trade Tax Officers were held entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420. Again the judgment is taking into account the equivalence of Trade Tax Officers with District Level Officers. As already held above, here the different pay scales have been made applicable only on account of completion of five years university service.
13. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has pointed out the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan reported at , to contend that burden is upon the petitioner to plead and prove with sufficient material that there was unequal treatment. It is contended that there cannot be any mathematical precision while examining the issue of violation of Article 14 and reliance has been placed upon Para 6 to contend that only two conditions are required to be fulfilled viz., the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others; and second that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It is contended that as petitioners have failed to demonstrate absence of any such rationale and nexus with objects sought to be achieved, the petition must fail. In view of discussion already undertaken above while considering the law expounded in P. Savita v. Union of India (supra), here higher pay scale of 680-1250 allowed only on length of total university service is not valid. Neither petitioners nor respondents have questioned propriety of giving higher start or salary to Senior Research Assistants on account of their more experience. Hence, the arguments of learned AGP are misconceived. The norm applied was also found incorrect as per minutes of Vice-Chancellors Co-oidination Committee dated 20-7-1982 and 18-2-1988. The second ruling on which reliance has been placed is in the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P. reported at , which again states that two different pay scales can be provided in same cadre on the basis of educational qualification even if the nature of work is same and posts are interchangeable. Here, as already stated above that two different pay scales are provided not on account of educational qualification but only on account of length of total service with University. Thus, the service rendered by a Junior Research Assistant i.e. in the lower cadre is also taken into account while giving him higher pay scale of Rs. 680-1250 and creating an anomaly in which senior employee receives lower pay scale or less pay.
14. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have challenged their fixation which has been done in terms of Government Resolutions dated 7-8-1981. The learned Counsel for the respondents have argued that several Junior Research Assistants have already been given benefit of fixation in pay scale of Rs. 680-1250 and those persons are not parties before this Court. We find that the grievance of the petitioners can be ventilated by directing the respondents to step up their pay to the existing pay of the Senior Research Assistants who got the fixation in scale of 680-1250 accordingly prior to them because of completion of total five years of service in University but is junior to them in cadre of Senior Research Assistant. Thus, if pay of petitioners is stepped up, no injustice will be caused to such junior in cadre Senior Research Assistants who were already placed in time scale of Rs. 680-1250 at the relevant time and whose salary has been revised accordingly from time to time.
15. We accordingly hold that the condition of having five years total experience of University service for claiming pay scale of Rs. 680-1250 in the cadre of Senior Research Assistant is unsustainable. The 5 years service has to be after the candidate is appointed or promoted as the Senior Research Assistant. In view of this interpretation given by us, it is not necessary to quash or set aside the said condition. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the petitioners as mentioned above and to release to them all consequential arrears and to complete said exercise as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.