{"id":55356,"date":"1999-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999"},"modified":"2016-02-23T19:29:02","modified_gmt":"2016-02-23T13:59:02","slug":"college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IIIAD Delhi 503, 2000 (56) DRJ 1<\/div>\n
Author: K.Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n
Bench: K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
K.Ramamoorthy, J.<\/p>\n
1.     There  are ten petitioners. The first petitioner is The ‘College  Section Officers’ Association (University of Delhi). Petitioner No. 2 is Delhi University Section Officers’ Association. Petitioner No. 3 is Delhi University  & College Karamchari Union. Petitioner No. 4 is a Section Officer  in College  of  Vocational Studies. Petitioner No. 5 is a Section  Officer  in Dayal  Singh College, Delhi. These two Colleges are maintained by the  University  of Delhi with the granting aid from the University Grants  Commission. Petitioners 6 to 10 are Section Officers in the University of  Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners  had  been garnted the pay  scale  of  Rs.650-1200  w.e.f. 19.2.1983.  But  in the writ petitioner, the petitioners  claim  that  this should have been given w.e.f.1.1.1973.\n<\/p>\n
2.   In  a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the Section  Officers  in the Colleges and the University are equal to the Section  Officers in  the  University Grants Commission and the Union of India.  The  Section Officers  in  the Union of the India and the University  Grants  Commission have been given the pay sacle of Rs. 650-1200 w.e.f.1.1.1973 and therefore, the  Section  Officers in the Colleges and the University of  Delhi  should also be given the same pay scale w.e.f.1.1.1973.\n<\/p>\n
3.   In  view of the nature of the controversy, it is necessary to set  out the facts in some detail.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  petitioners  have given the list of Section Officers  working  in Colleges  in  Annexure ‘A’. In Annexure ‘B’, the list of  Section  Officers functioning  in  the  University of Delhi is given.  The  petitioners  have stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition:\n<\/p>\n
     “That the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ  petition is that though they have been performing the same duties  as ection  Officers as are being performed by the Section  Officers  of  the Government of India or of the University  Grants  Commission,  yet  while  Section Officers of the  Government  of  India  and\/or  University Grants Commission have been getting the  scale of.   Rs.   650-30-740-35-810-EB-35-880-40-1000-EB-40-1200   with effect from 1.1.1973 as per Central Civil Services (Revised  Pay) Rules,  1973 promulgated on the basis of the  recommendations  of
\n     the  Third  Central Pay Commission, the petitiones  herein  have been given the said scale only with effect from 19.2.1983.”\n<\/p>\n
5.   It  is  stated that from the year 1978, the present  Section  Officers ere given this designation while they were previously designated as Superintendent and it is stated by the petitioners that the Executive Council of the  University had recommended to maintain the parity between the  Section Officers in the University Grants Commissions and the colleges.\n<\/p>\n
6.   It is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition:-\n<\/p>\n
     “That  it would be interesting to note that though, on one  hand, the scale of Rs. 650-1200 which was given to the petitioners with  effect from 19.2.83 was on the express ground of removing disparity  in the matter of pay scales and promotional avenues  between  the Section Officers of the University of Delhi\/various  Colleges  on   one  hand  and  Section  Officers  of  the   Government   of   India\/University  Grants  Commission on the other hand,  yet  the  respondents  have evidently ignored that disparity which  existed during the period from 1.1.1973 to 18.2.198 has not been removed  for  the said period and this has been in spite of the fact  that  the petitioners have been representing their case right from 1973
\n     and  even  from a time prior to that and that the  University  of  Delhi through its Executive Council, as already stated above, had  taken  the decision in favour of the petitioners as far  back  as  1973 and the delay of the said period of about 10 years has  been wholly  and solely on the part of the authorities  concerned.  In humble  submission  of the petitioners, the impugned act  of  the  respondents in not giving the scale of Rs. 650-1200 from 1.1.1973 has, thus, been wholly arbitrary and hence violative of not  only  Articles 14 and 16, but also Article 39 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  petitioners  have given the history relating to the  revision  of scale  of pay. Reference is made to the representation made by the  Section Officers in the University\/Colleges on the 12th of November, 1973. That  is
\nfiled as Annexure ‘C’ and the same is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “We have been provided the following scales of pay from  1.3.1968
\n     :-\n<\/p>\n
 Grade I : 350-25-500-30-650
\n  (w.e.f.1.12.1968)
\nGrade II: 325-15-475-EB-20-575<\/p>\n
     At the time of revision of scale of pay as noted above the Super intendents as well as the Karamchari Union had urged the  University  authorities for parity in the revision of scale of  pay  of  Superintendents with those of the Superintendents in the UGC. The University had agreed to the request and had requested the UGC to  sanction the scale of pay to the Superintendents of the Universi ty at par with the Superintendents in the UGC i.e. as follows.\n<\/p>\n
     Grade I : 400-25-500-30-590-EB-30-680 <\/p>\n
     Grade II: 350-25-575<\/p>\n
     Although the grades of the Superintendents in University were not given  exactly  at par with those of the Superintendents  of  the  UGC, yet the parity had been maintained to a greater extent  i.e. gainst the scale of pay of Rs. 350-575 prevailing in the UGC for grade  II the scale of pay of Rs.325-575 had been agreed  to  and against  the grade of Rs. 400-680 for grade I post the  scale  of  pay  of Rs. 350-650 was agreed to. It is understood that the  UGC  has  further revised the scale of pay of the Section Officers  in  the UGC as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     Grade I : 620-30-800-EB-30-830-35-900 <\/p>\n
     Grade II : 350-25-500-30-590<\/p>\n
     In  view of the fact that the Superintendents in  the  University  are  having  the same responsibility and are  discharging  duties  comparable  to thier counterparts in the Government of India  and  UGC (this contention has already been agreed to by the Establishment Committee and the Executive Council in 1969 when the proposal  for revision of pay scale had been made to the UGC) there  is no  reason as to why the Superintendent in the University  should  not be provided the same designation and the grade as are obtaining in the UGC. Therefore, the designation of the  Superintendent n  the University should be changed to Section Officer  Grade  I and  Grade II and should be placed at par with the Section  Offi cers  in  the UGC not only for the time being, but also  for  all  further revisions.\n<\/p>\n
     We, therefore, request that our above-noted grievance may  kindly  be  considered by the Executive Council under the  provisions  of  the State G (ix).”\n<\/p>\n
8.   On  the 19th of December, 1973, a resolution was passed by the  Execuive Council of the University in the following terms :-\n<\/p>\n
     “The Council considered the representation of the Superintendents working  in the University regarding bringing  their  designation and  scale of pay at par with that prevailing in  the  University Grants Commission, (vide Appendix XXVIII).\n<\/p>\n
     In this connection it was noted that at present there was difference between the grades of the Superintendents of the  University  and the Section Officers of the University Grants Commission. The Superintendents  of the University were placed in  the  following grades:-\n<\/p>\n
 Grade I : 350-25-500-30-650
\n   (Selection Grade)<\/p>\n
     Grade II : 325-15-475-EB-20-575<\/p>\n
     Their  counterparts,  namely Section Officers in  the  University Grants Commission were in the following two grades:\n<\/p>\n
     Grade I : 620-30-800-EB-30-830-35-900 <\/p>\n
     Grade II : 350-25-500-30-590<\/p>\n
     The  Council resolved that the grades of the  Superintendents  in the  University be revised as follows subject to the approval  of  the University Grants Commission:\n<\/p>\n
     Grade I: 620-30-800-EB-30-830-35-900<\/p>\n
     Grade II: 350-25-500-30-590<\/p>\n
     The  Council  further  resolved that the designation of  the  post  of Superintendent  in the University be also changed to that of Section  Officers Grade I and Grade II, as prevailing, in the University Grants  Commission, and the proposals be referred to the Commissions for their approval.\n<\/p>\n
9.   According  to the petitioners, the University sought the  approval  of the University Grants Commission, the second respondent and the  University Grants Commission expressed its inability to accord approval. According  to the  petitioner, in June, 1974 the Vice-Chancellor wrote to the  University Grants  Commission for the acceptance of the proposal for the  revision  of pay  scales of the Superintendents. The Executive Council again  considered the matter on the 8th of January, 1974 and decided as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “(i)  That the University Grants Commission be written to  again,      reiterating  our  earlier proposal that the  designation  of  the posts of Superintendents in the University be changed to that  of Section  Officers Grade I and Grade II as prevailing in the  University  Grants Commission and that the revised scale of  pay  of Superintendents  as  Section Officers in  the  University  Grants Commission’s  Office be approved in the case of the  Superintendents.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)  That in the meantime the new scales of pay as  approved  by the University Grants Commission be implemented and the University Grants Commission be informed that these had been accepted  by the University provisionally.”\n<\/p>\n
10.  The Executive Council of the University wrote to the University Grants Commission  reiterating  its earlier stand. As noticed above, in  1978  the approval of the change of designation to Section Officer from  Superintendent was granted.\n<\/p>\n
11.  On the 19th of February, 1983 the University Grants Commission accepted  the recommendations of the Committee and the minutes of the meeting  of the University Grants Commission are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     Item No. 6.08: To consider the report of the Committee  appointed  by the Commission to consider the recommendations made by the UGC  Committee  on Disparities in scales of pay and Avenues of  Promotion of different categories of non-teaching staff in the Cantral Universities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  .         …………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Commission  accepted  the recommendation  of  the  Committee appointed  to consider the disparities of pay scales and  avenues of  promotions of the different categories of non-teaching  staff in the Central Universities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 S.   Recommendation of the              Decision of the   Committee                          Commission\n1.   Allowances of various kinds        Accepted. To ensure\nand retirement benefits are tied to     that the Universities do not \nscales of pay and if scales of pay      flout the guidelines laid\nare varied, the UGC would be within     down by the Universities \nits rights to refuse payments at least  Grants Commission the \nin regard to additional dearness and    Acts of the Central\nother allowances or increased           Universities be suitably \nretirement benefits (Paragraph 2.3.).   amended so that any\n                                        changes in pay scales and\n                                        service conditions in general\n                                        of the staff in the Central\n                                        Universities are made only \n                                        with the prior approval of \n                                        the Universities Grants\n                                        Commission and the \n                                        Government of India.\n2.   Each University should             Accepted. The relevant\nset up a work Study-cum-Cadre           Statute of the Universities \nReview Unit which should invariably     be amended so as\nvet each proposal for creation of       to provide that the\nposts. The Unit while making its        Executive Council will \nrecommendations certify that the        consider proposals for \nscales of pay and designations are      alterations in establishment \nduly approved and correspond to         rules only after \nthe duties and responsibilities of      the recommendations of\nthe posts. The Finance Committee        the Finance Committee\nwhile examining the budget proposals    are available.\nshould specifically examine \nthis aspect. \nWe further recommend that alternatives\nin establishment i.e. creation of posts, \nrevision and upgradation of scales of pay \nshould always be examined by the Finance \nCommittee of the Central Universities before\nthe proposals are placed before the \nExecutive Councils (Paragraph - 2.4).\n3.   We are of the firm view                 Accepted.\nthat the scales of pay designations \nduties and recruitment qualifications \nof the posts of non-teaching staff\nin the Central Universities be the \nsame as applicable for the \ncorrespondent posts in the \nGovernment of India. \nIn the case of laboratory \nstaff where necessary, the \nscales\/designations as are \navailable for the corresponding \nposts in the laboratories of \nthe CSIR be followed. Further, \nthe Central Universities should \nfollow the same norms\/rules as \nare available in the Government \nof India for special allowances \nand other fringe benefits. There \nwill then be uniformity in scales \nof pay and allowances of the \nnon-teaching staff in the Central\nUniversities (Paragraph - 2.6).\n4.   We fully endorse the stand         Accepted. The revised pay\ntaken by the University Grants     scales already introduced \nCommission in consultation with    may be personal to the \nthe Central Government that        present incumbents. In \nadditional dearness allowances     future all posts be\nwould be payable only in respect   filled up in accordance \nof those employees whose scales    with the pay scales as \nof pay are duly prescribed are     approved by the University \nnot in other case. The University  Grants Commission \nGrants Commission has already      for the concerned posts. \ninformed the Aligar Muslim \nUniversity to this effect. \nWe further recommend that this \nprinciple should be strictly, \nadhered to in respect of all \nCentral Universities and benefits \nlike house rent allowances etc. \nshould also be admissible only \non approved pay scales and not \non the basis of the unilateral \nrevisions (Paragraph - 2.8).\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
12.  It may be noted that it is only pursuant to this the pay scales of Rs. 650-1200 was given to the Section Officers w.e.f. 19.2.1983.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.  On  the 14th of April, 1983, the Deputy Secretary,  University  Grants Commission  wrote  to the Registrar, University of Delhi in  the  following terms :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Sub  : Upgradation in salary scales of Ministerial and Class  IV      categories of staff in Central Universities.\n<\/p>\n
     In  continuation of this office letter of even number  dated  8th April, 1983 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of Your  University,  I  am directed to say that the University Grants  Commission,  on the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the  Commission to identify disparity in the pay scale and promotional avenues of on-teaching  staff  in the Central Universities  has  agreed  to upgrade the scale of pay of the category of staff mentioned below  w.e.f. 19.2.1983 in the Central Universities:\n<\/p>\n
 S.   Post                Existing scales     Upgraded scales\nNo.                      of pay              of pay\n                                             as on 19.2.1983\n1.   Section Officer     Rs.650-960\n     Grade-I\n2.   Section Officer     Rs.550-900          Rs. 650-1200\n     Grade-II\n3.   Sr.Assistant        Rs.425-700          Rs. 425-800\n4.   Stenographers       Rs.425-700          Rs. 425-800\n      \n \n\n     A separate communication is being sent regarding mode of fixation of pay for the above categories of staff. \n \n\n     A further communication will follow with regard to the scales  of  pay of the personal assistants. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     The  above  orders will also be applicable  to  Delhi  University  affiliated Colleges receiving maintenance grant from the  University Grants Commission.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     That it would also be seen from the said representations that the scale  of pay of Section Officers of the University\/Colleges  had been ordered to be revised as Rs.650-1200 by the UGC, but  unfortunately  this  was  done only with effect  from  19.2.1983  even  though  this  was done with effect from 1.1.1973 in the  case  of  Section  Officers of the UGC and\/or the Government of  India.  In this  connection, a copy of letter of the UGC dated 14.4.1983  is  attached herewith and marked as Annexure I.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  In  paragraphs  18 to 20 of the writ petition, the  petitioners  based eir claim. They are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “That  it may be clarified here that so far as the Section  Officers  of the Government of India are concerned, they were,  prior to  1.1.1973, getting the scale of Rs. 350-900 and from  1.1.1973  they were given the scale of Rs. 650-1200. So far as the Superin tendents\/ Section Officers of the UGC are concerned, they,  prior to  1.1.1971, as already stated above, were getting the scale  of  Rs.620-900 (Grade I) and Rs.350-590 (Grade II). However, the said cales  were  revised to Rs.840-1200  (Grade-I)  and  Rs.650-1040 Grade II) with effect from 1.1.1973.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  it  may be mentioned that the placement from  Grade  II  to rade  I in UGC as well as in the University\/College was made  on the  basis of seniority and the posts in Grade I were 50% of  the posts  in  Grade II. This was ultimately found as  arbitrary  and  unreasonable  in  as much as though the incumbants  of  Grade  II performed the same duties as were performed by the incumbents  of Grade I, yet some people were given the higher scale of Rs.  840-1200.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That  so far as the UGC is concerned, both the said  scales  were erged  into  one i.e. Rs. 650-1200 with effect from  23rd  June, 1982.  The Section Officers of the UGC, though  technically  were  given  the scale of Rs.650-1040 in Grade II, but, in effect  they  got the scale of Rs.650-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973. Though on paper, it was said to be effective from 23.6.1982, but, in  fact, by that date, the incumbents concerned could not reach the  stage   of Rs.1200\/-. In fact, the said revision also was arbitrary. As a  matter of fact, the incumbents ought to have been given the scale  of Rs.840-1200 as some of the incumbents were in fact getting the  scale of Rs.840-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973 when the arbitrary
\n     bifurcation was existing and this, as stated above, was sought to  be removed only with effect from 23.6.1982.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.  In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “That under the aforesaid circumstances, the Section Officers  of  the University\/Colleges including the petitioners herein,  became entitled  to  the  scale of Rs. 640-1200 from  1.1.1973.  In  the  alternative,  they became entitled at least to the scale  of  Rs. 650-1200  with  effect from 1.1.1973 as was being  given  to  the  Section  Officers of the Government of India\/UGC. Still  alternative,  the petitioners became entitled to the scale of  Rs  .840-1200  (Grade-I)  and  Rs. 650-1040 (Grade-II)  with  effect  from 1.1.1973 to 22nd June, 1982 and to a common scale of Rs. 650-1200  with  effect  from  22nd June, 1982 as was done in  the  case  of  Section Officers of the UGC.”\n<\/p>\n
17.  According  to the petitioners, there was some  correspondence  between he University Grants Commission and the University and it is not relevant. t is only on these grounds the petitioners claim pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 w.e.f 1.1.1973.\n<\/p>\n
18.  In  paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the second  respondent, University Grants Commission, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “That  it is incorrect to say that the scales of pay  of  Section Officers  in the UGC were at par with that of the  Government  of  India with effect from 1.1.1973, as alleged. The UGC, unlike  the  Government of India had two different scales for Section Officers  (Grade-I)  and  Section Officers (Grade-II). In fact,  these  two  grades were integrated only w.e.f.23.6.1982, and the pay  revised   from the said date.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards the averments contained in para 4 that the petitioners are performing the same duties as Section Officers in the Govern  ment of India and the UGC, such comparison of duties is  impossi ble  in the absence of any specific details in the  petition  regarding  the nature of such work. It would not be correct to  say  that the nature of work in the Government of India, the UGC,  the  Delhi  University and the Colleges is the same. As held  by  this Hon’ble  Court  in Des Raj Vs. Lt. Governor (1982 (2)  SLR  681), even the fact that the work may be of equal importance  (assuming  it  is  so)  does not make it an identical  work  attracting  the  constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work.”\n<\/p>\n
19.  In  paragraph 12 of the counter, the second respondent made its  position  clear relating to the change of esignation to Section Officer  which was accepted in 1978. The same reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “That  the University itself re-designated the post  of  Superin tendents as Section Officers and approached the UGC for the same.  As may be seen from Annexure-F of the petition, the UGC expressed its  no  objection to the re-designation  of  Superintendents  as  Section  Officers  in the existing scale. It was,  however,  made clear  that  the approval did not commit the UGC  to  revise  the scale of pay of these posts. Up to November, 1978, the scales  of  pay  were  not at par with the Government of India  or  with  the  UGC.”\n<\/p>\n
20.  In paragraph 15 & 16, the situation is fully explained. The same reads
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “That  in  reply to para 15, I say and submit that it is  a  fact  that the UGC on a reference received from the Ministry of  Education  had  constituted a Committee to look into the  question  of disparity in the pay scales of Central Universities. The  Committee was constituted in August, 1982 and its recommendations  were placed  before  the UGC on 27th January, 1983.  The  UGC  further  desired  that  these recommendations may be examined  by  another Committee  vide  its  resolution dated 27th  January,  1983.  The recommendations of this Committee were further considered by  the  UGC at its meeting held on 19-20th Feb., 1983 and the UGC broadly  agreed  with  the recommendations, On the basis of  the  decision
\n     taken in the UGC’s meeting, the approval of the UGC was  conveyed  to  the  Delhi University for the placement of the Grade  II  and  Grade  I  Section  Officers in the scale  of  Rs.650-1200  w.e.f.  19.2.1983.  The decision was made effective from the date of  the   decision taken by the UGC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     That in reply to para 16, I refer to the reply contained here-in-able in para 15. The date from which the decision of the UGC  was  to  be effective was the date when the decision was taken by  the UGC.  It was not possible for the UGC to compare Section  Officer with a Teacher in the matter of par fixation in view of the  fact  that  the  non-teaching  staff of the  Central  Universities  are  governed  by  the  rules applicable to  the  Government  servants whereas the teachers of Central Universities were governed  under he Acts and Statues of the Universities.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.  Dealing with the comparison of the nature of work done by the  Section Officers in the University Grants Commission, Government of India,  University and the colleges, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “That the contents of paras 21 and 22 seek cartain reliefs  without  any  foundation. The UGC, the Government of  India  and  the  Delhi  University are the different bodies and the  employees  of  one  cannot  automatically be equated with the employees  of  the  other  for  purposes  of equating scales of pay.  The  nature  of duties performed by different officials in these three bodies  is  not  and need not necessarily be identical. To say  that  because  Section  Officers in the Government of India or in the  UGC  have  been  sanctioned a particular scale of pay and  that,  therefore,  Section  Officers  in the Universities\/Colleges  should  also  be   sanctioned  the  same scale of pay is not logical, unless  it  is
\n     clearly  established that all of them are  identically  situated.  The petitioners not having considered it necessary to plead or to bring out the identity and the nature of work of Section Officers in  the  different establishments, they are not entitled  to  any  reliefs as prayed for in the petition.”\n<\/p>\n
22.  The  learned  counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.D.  Gupta,  submitted at  the  Supreme  Court had laid down that when  employees  in  different organisation  coming  under the control of the Government of India  do  the same  work,  they are entitled to equal pay. The learned  counsel  for  the petitioners,  Mr.  G.D. Gupta, referred to the following judgments  of  the Supreme Court in support of his submission:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.   “Randhir  Singh  Vs. Union of India & Others”, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   \"M\/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Audrey D'Costa  &      Another\", . \n \n\n     3.   \"Y.K.Mehta & Others Vs. Union of India & Another\", . \n \n\n     4.   \"Grih  Kalyan  Kendra Workers\" Union Vs. Union  of  India  &      Others\", . \n \n\n     5.   \"Chief  Conservator  of Forests and another,  etc.etc.,  Vs. \n     Jagannath  Maruti Kondhare, etc.etc.\",\n\n \n\n23.  The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.D.Gupta, making particu-\nlar reference to \"M\/s.Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd Vs. Audrey D'Costa  & \n<\/pre>\n
Another”, , submitted that the supreme Court had laid  down that  the financial obligation of the employer cannot stand in the  way  of
\nthe grant of relief in respect of `equal pay for equal work”.\n<\/p>\n
24.  The  learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Gourab  K.Banerjee,
\nsubmitted  the a statement with remarks explaining the situation, which  is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      RELEVANT  UNION OF       UNIVERSITY     UNIVERSITY      REMARKS\n     DATE      INDIA          GRANTS         OF DELHI    \n                              COMMISSION        \n     01.12.68  Section Offic- Section Off-   Superinten-   Even\n               er 350-900     icer Gr.I      dent Gr-I     prior to \n               (page 20)      620-900Gr.II   350-650       the date\n                              350-590        Gr.II         of  \n                              (page 20)      325-575       claim\n                                             (page 13)     (1.1.73)\n                                                           Supdts.In\n                                                           Delhi\n                                                           University\n                                                           had deci-\n                                                           dedly\n                                                           inferior \n                                                           pay scal-\n                                                           es to\n                                                           Section\n                                                           Officers \n                                                           in the \n                                                           UGC and\n                                                           the Gover-\n                                                           nment.\n     01.01.73  Section Off-   Section Off-   Superinten-   From th-\n               icer 650-1200  icer Gr.I      dent Gr.I     is date,\n               (page 20)      840-1200       650-960       the pay \n                              Gr.II          Gr.II         scale of \n                              650-960        550-900       a Grade-\n                              (page 20,84)   (page 16)     I Supdt. \n                                                           in Delhi\n                                                           University\n                                                           was equa-\n                                                           ted to \n                                                           that of a \n                                                           Grade-II\n                                                           Section\n                                                           Officer \n                                                           in the \n                                                           UGC. The-\n                                                           re was no\n                                                           parity wh\n                                                           -at so ev\n                                                           -er Inde-\n                                                           ed, the \n                                                           UGC refu-\n                                                           sed to gr\n                                                           ant pari-\n                                                           ty vide \n                                                           letters \n                                                           dated \n                                                           9.4.74,\n                                                           3.6.74,\n                                                           27.8.74,\n                                                           21.6.75,\n                                                           4.7.75,\n                                                           28.7.77,\n                                                           3.1.78.\n                                                           (page 53-\n                                                           56).\n     07.10.78  Section Offi   Section Off-   Sec.Offi-     The E.C.\n               cer 650-1200   icer Gr.I      cer Gr.I      of Delhi\n                              840-1200       650-960       Universi-\n                              Gr.II          Gr.II         ty redes-\n                              650-960        550-900       ignated \n                                                           Supdts as\n                                                           Section\n                                                           Officers.\n                                                           UGC by \n                                                           letter\n                                                           dated\n                                                           29.11.78\n                                                           while not\n                                                           Objecting\n                                                           to the \n                                                           redesigna-\n                                                           tion, em-\n                                                           phasised \n                                                           that this\n                                                           in no way\n                                                           committed \n                                                           it to re-\n                                                           vise the\n                                                           pay scal-\n                                                           es and p-\n                                                           ay scales\n                                                           could not\n                                                           be revis-\n                                                           ed witho-\n                                                           ut prior\n                                                           approval\n                                                           (page 43)\n     23.06.82  Section Offi-  Section Offi-  Sec.Off-      Existing\n               cer 650-1200   cer 650-1200   icer GR.I     pay scal-\n               (page 21)      Gr. I          650-960       es of Se-\n                                             Gr.II 550-900 ction Off\n                                                           icers in \n                                                           the UGC\n                                                           merged in\n                                                           to a sing\n                                                           le scale \n                                                           of pay fr\n                                                           om this \n                                                           date pros\n                                                           pectively.\n                                                           (page 80)\n     19.02.83  Section Offi   Section Offi-  Sec.Offi      Equalisa-\n               cer 650-1200   cer 650-1200   cer           tion of \n                                             650-1200      pay scal-\n                                                           es w.e.f.\n                                                           19.2.83\n                                                           for all\n                                                           Central\n                                                           Universiti-\n                                                           es. Cut \n                                                           Off date\n                                                           fixed as\n                                                           follows:-\n                                                           Aug 1982-\n                                                           Committee \n                                                           to look\n                                                           into dis-\n                                                           parties\n                                                           of pay\n                                                           scales in\n                                                           Central\n                                                           Universiti-\n                                                           es set up\n                                                           (page 84)\n                                                           27.1.83\n                                                           initial \n                                                           recommenda-\n                                                           tions (re\n                                                           examined)\n                                                           (page 84)\n                                                           19.2.83\n                                                           UGC's me-\n                                                           eting app\n                                                           roved cer\n                                                           tain re-\n                                                           commendati-\n                                                           ons. Cut\n                                                           off date\n                                                           fixed.\n                                                           (page 46,85)\n                                                           14.4.83\n                                                           Communica-\n                                                           ted to\n                                                           Universiti-\n                                                           es.\n                                                           (page 75)\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
25.  The  learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Gourab  K.Banerjee, referred to the following rulings by the Supreme Court :-\n<\/p>\n
     1.   “Union of India & Another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal”,  .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   “Sher Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others”, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.   “Dr.P.N.Puri & Others Vs. State of UP and Others”, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.   “University  Grants Commission Vs. Sadhana Chaudhary &  Oth-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ers”, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.   “Rao Somashekara & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another”,
\n    .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.   “Vice  Chancellor,  G.B.Pant University of  Agriculture  and
\n     Technology  & Another Vs. Dr.Kewala Nand & Others .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
26.  The learned counsel for the second responden,. Mr. Gourab  K.Banerjee, submitted that the position of the Section Officers in the colleges, in the Universities, in the University Grants Commission and in the Government  of India  is entirely different. The nature of the work is not the  same;  the responsibility  is not the same, and Section Officer in University  or  the college  cannot  be  compared with the Section Officer  in  the  University Grants  Commission or the Government of India. The designation alone  would not make them equal and on that footing the petitioners cannot claim parity
\nin  the  scales of pay. The University Grants  Commission,  however,  after considering  the matter had decided on the 19th of February, 1983 to  grant the pay scale of Rs.650-1200 and that has been granted. The decision of the University Grants Commission had been given effect to with effect from  the date  of  its resolution. The petitioners cannot claim the parity  for  the period from 1.1.1973 to 18.2.1983 and the University Grants Commission  had taken the decision having regard to the relevant aspects of the matter. The learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.Gourab K. Banerjee, submitted that  the stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petition is  not  sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Having considered the matter in the light of the principles laid  down by  the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the petitioners have not  made out  a  case for the grant of pay scale of Rs. 650-1200  from  1.1.1973  to 18.2.1983.  The  authorities  referred to by the learned  counsel  for  the petitioner, Mr. G.D. Gupta, do not help the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
28.  In  “Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Others”, ,  the
\nfacts  are entirely different. The facts, as noticed by the Supreme  Court, in that case are:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  petitioner is a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police  Force  under the Delhi Administration and he demands that his scales  of  pay  should  at least be the same as the scale of  pay  of  other  drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration. The scale  of  pay  of a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force is Rs.  210- 270  in the case of non-matriculates and Rs. 225-308 in the  case  of  matriculates.  The scale of pay of a Driver  in  the  Railway Protection  Force is Rs. 260-400. The scale of pay of drivers  in  the     non-Secretariat     office     in     Delhi     is    Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     260-6-290-EB-6-326-EB-8-8-8-390-10-400.  The  scale  of  pay   of  drivers in the office of the Language Commission is Rs.  260-350.  The  pay scale of drivers of heavy vehicles in the  Fire  Brigade  and the Department of Light House is Rs.330-480. The case of  the  petitioner  is that he discharges the same duties as the rest  of  the  drivers  in  the other offices; in fact he  claims  that  he ischarges more onerous duties than the others. He complains that there  is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against the  petitioner and other driver-Constables merely because he and his  ilk  happen to be described as constables as indeed they are bound  to  be so described, belonging as they do to the Police Force.”\n<\/p>\n
29.  Referring to the Report of the Third Pay Commission, the Supreme Court bserved:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  appears that the Third Pay Commission considered the  claims of  all  drivers  as a common category under the  head  “the  pay scales  appropriate  for drivers of motor vehicles  operating  on  roads  .. … …”After considering the qualifications etc.  possessed by drivers the Commission proposed pay scales for  various  categories  of  drivers  like drivers of  light  motor  vehicles,  drivers  of heavy motor vehicles, drivers employed  in  organisaions  with large fleet of vehicles, drivers of staff  cars  etc.  The  pay scales were professed to be fixed with reference to  the   qualifications for driving, the nature and the arduousness of the  duties  and  responsibilities, the non-availability  of  adequate
\n     promotional avenues and such other usual considerations. The  Pay  Commission, however, while considering the question of scales  of  pay  of  drivers separated the case of constable-drivers  on  the  ground  that their case would be considered along with the  cases of  other  police personnel. The grievance of the  petitioner  is that  while considering the question of the scales of pay of  the  police  personnel,  the  Pay Commission failed  to  consider  the  drivers as a separate category and ignored the special considerations which prevailed in the case of drivers in other departments  and which should have, therefore, prevailed in the case of  driver-constables also. The driver-constables were not only  required  to  possess  heavy transport driving licence, they  were  further  required to undergo a test of proficiency in driving before  they
\n     were  appointed  as driver-constables in the  police  force.  The  duties  were no less arduous and their responsibilities  no  less  heavy  than the duties and responsibilities of drivers  in  other  departments.  Their hours of work were long and inconvenient  and  there was constant exposure to security risks. The petitioner and other driver-constables made a representation to the  authorities  that  their case was omitted to be considered separately  by  the Pay Commission and that their scales of pay should be the same as the  drivers  of heavy vehicles in other  departments.  As  their   claims  for better scales of pay did not meet with  any  success, the present application has been filed for the issuance of a writ  under Art. 32 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
30.  It  was submitted on the behalf of the Union of India that  the  petiioner, was no more and no less than a constable of the Delhi Police  Force nd  that there was no such category of Drivers in the Delhi Police  Force. The Supreme Court had noticed that though he was employed as constable,  he was only working as driver. The Supreme Court noticed:\n<\/p>\n
     “He was designated as constable because, for the purposes of  the  discipline  of the Force and appointment as driver in  the  Delhi   Police  Force,  he had to be made a member of  the  Delhi  Police   Force and had to be assigned a rank in the Force. The investiture of the petitioner with the “Powers, functions and privileges of a police officer” was a consequence of his becoming a member of the  Force.”\n<\/p>\n
31.  Dealing  with the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of  India,  the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  counter-affidavit  does  not explain how the  case  of  the  drivers in the police force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a  lower  scale of pay for them. Apparently in the view of  the  respondents,  the  circumstances that persons belong  to  different  departments  of  the Government is itself  a  sufficient  circumstances  to justify different scales of pay irrespective  of  the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities. We  cannot  accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its  logical
\n     conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government  of India may vary from department to department  notwithstanding  that their powers, duties and responsibilities  are identical. We concede that equation of posts and equation of  pay are  matters  primarily for the executive Government  and  expert bodies  like  the Pay Commission and not for Courts but  we  must  hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where  all relevant  considerations are the same, persons holding  identical  posts  may not be treated differentially in the matter  of  their pay  merely  because  they belong to  different  departments.  Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions  and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held  by them very, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     lar  pay  merely because the posts are of the same rank  and  the  nomenclature is the same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.  Referring  to the concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’ under  Article 9D  which provides for equal pay for equal work for men and  women,  the Supreme Court expressed the view :\n<\/p>\n
     “Our  attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukherjee Vs.  Union  of  India,  ILR (1973) 1 Delhi 427, Makhan Singh Vs. Union of  India,  ILR  (1975) 1 Delhi 227 where reference was made to the  observations  of  this  Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi  Vs.  Union  of  India,  describing the principle of equal pay for   equal  work as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do  with
\n     Art. 14.  We shall presently point out how the  principle,  “equal  pay  for  equal  work”, is not an abstract doctrine  but  one  of  substance.  Kishori  Mohanlal Bakshi Vs. Union of  India  is  not  itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided  there was  that  there could be different scales of pay  for  different  grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are  different grades in a service, with  varying  qualifications  for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a
\n     promotional  avenue for officers of the lower grade.  The  higher  qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic  qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably  sustain the classification of the officers into  two  grades  with  different  scales of pay. The principle of  equal  pay  for   equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if
\n     sought to be applied to them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  is true that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal  work’  is  not  expressly declared by our Constitution to be  a  fundamental  right.  But it certainly is a Constitutional goal.  Art. 39(d)  of the Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for both men and  women” as a Directive Principle of State Policy. ‘Equal  pay  for equal work for both men and women’ means equal pay for  equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive  principles  as  has been pointed out in some of the judgments of  this  Court  have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of inter-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     pretation.  Art. 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State  not  to  deny  any person equality before the law or the equal  protection   of the laws and Art. 16 declares that there shall be equality  of
\n     opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses  of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the  vast  majority  of the people the equality clauses of the  Constitution  would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they  do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some  substance  if  equal work means equal pay.  Whether  the  special procedure prescribed by a statue for trying alleged robber-barons  and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discrimina-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     tory,  whether a particular Governmental Policy in the matter  of  grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the  Executive,  whether  the takeover of the  empires  of  industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions  of  like  nature  leave the millions of the people  of  this  country  untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane  they  may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there,
\n     if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have  any  significance  to them. The preamble to the Constitution  declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute  India  in  to a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the  word  ‘Socialist’  must  mean something. Even if it does not  mean  ‘To  each according to his need’, it must at least mean ‘equal pay for   equal  work’. The principle of equal pay for equal’ is  expressly
\n     recognised  by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59  of  the  Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the  Czecho-slovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of  the  Code  of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33  of  the Rumanina Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in  several  western  labour  codes too.  Under  provisions  in  S.31  (g.No.2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and  according  to  Aregentinian  law, this principle must be applied  to  female workers  in all collective bargaining agreements.  In  accordance  with  Section 3 of the Grundgestz of the German Federal  Republic   and  clauses  7,  Section 123 of the  Mexican  Constitution,  the
\n     principle  is given universal significance  (vide:  International  Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p.265). The preamble of the Constitu-tion  of  the International Labour  Organisation  recognises  the principle  of  ‘equal remuneration for work of  equal  value’  as  constituting  one  of the means of achieving the  improvement  of  ‘conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation  to  large  numbers of people as to produce unrest so great  that  the peace  and harmony of the world are imperiled”. Construing  Arti- cles  14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art.  39(d),  we  are of the view that the principle ‘Equal pay for Equal work’  is   deducible  from  those Articles and may be  properly  applied  to  cases  of  unequal scales of pay based on  no  classification  or  irrational  classification  through those drawing  the  different  scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
33.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court held:\n<\/p>\n
     “There  cannot be slightest doubt that the drivers in  the  Delhi  Police Force perform the same function and duties as other  drivers  in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central  Govrnment.  If  anything, by reason of their investiture  with  the `power functions and Privileges of a police officer’ their duties and  responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the  allega tion  in  the petition that the driver constables  of  the  Delhi  Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other   departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their  counter  that  the  duties of the driver constables of  the  Delhi  Police  Force  were  onerous. What then is the reason for giving  them  a
\n     lower  scales of pay than others? There is none. The only  answer  of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police  Force  and  the other drivers belong to different departments  and  that  the  principle  of equal pay for equal work is  not  a  principle  which  the Courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown  that  the  answer  in  unsound. The clarification  is  irrational.  We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents  to  fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the  driver-constables  of  the  Delhi Police Force at least on a par with  that  of  the  drivers  of the Railway Protection Force. The Scale of pay  shall be effective from 1st Jan, 1973 the date from which the recommen   dations of the Pay Commission were given effect.”\n<\/p>\n
34.  The dictim laid down by the Supreme Court in “Randhir Singh Vs.  Union of  India & Others”.,  is entirely different, and I fail  to see how this could help the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
35.  In  M\/s.  Mackinnon  Mackenzie  and Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Audrey  D’Costa  &
\nAnother”,  , the Supreme Court was dealing with claim of  a lady stenographer for equal pay under Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (Act  25
\nof  1976). The ratio in that case is entirely different and that has  absolutely no application to the instant case. It is only with reference to the claim under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
     “Applicability  of  the Act does not depend  upon  the  financial ability  of the management to pay equal remuneration as  provided  by it .”\n<\/p>\n
     This  is  relied on to project the claim of  the  petitioners  without proper appreciation of the setting in which the observation was made by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
36.  In  “Y.K.  Mehta & Others Vs. Union of India & Another”, , three categories of Staff Artistes of Doordarshan under the  Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, namely, Cameraman Grade-II, Sound  Recordist and lighting Assistant\/Lightman, have claimed that they should be  declared as Government servants and should be given the same pay scales as given  to their respective counterparts in the Film Division under the same Ministry.\n<\/p>\n
37.  Referring to the nature of the work, the Supreme Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is the case of the petitioners that the nature of work  performed by them is similar to that performed by their counterparts in the Film Division. The qualifications required for appointment to  these categories of Staff Artistes, are the same as  required  in  the cases of their counterparts in the Film Division. In  the circumstances,  it is submitted by the petitioners that the  said  Government order dated March 9, 1977 is discriminatory and violative  of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly,  in  these  writ  petitions it has been prayed  that  the  petitioners  should  be  declared  as Government servants and  paid  the  same
\n     scales of pay as paid to their counterparts in the Film  Division  with effect from respective dates of their appointments.”\n<\/p>\n
>38.  Dealing  with the case of the Government of India, the  Supreme  Court served :\n<\/p>\n
     “The respondents have opposed the writ petitions by filing  counter-affidavits.  It  has been averred in  the  counter-affidavits that  the Staff Artistes of Doordarshan are not Government  servants,  but  they are engaged on contract basis. It  is  submitted that as they are not of the same class as of the employees in the Film  Division, they are not entitled to the same scales of  pay. With regard to the Sound Recordist, petitioners in Writ  Petition  (C) No. 974 of 1978, it is the case of the respondents that there  is no such post in the Film Division as Sound Recordist”. It  is  averred that in the Film Division, there are three posts, namely, the  Chief Sound Recordist, the Recordist and the  Assistant  Re-\n<\/p>\n
     cordist.  It is, accordingly, contended that in Doordarshan,  the organisational  structure is entirely different and  consists  of  only one category of post, that is, the Sound Recordist.”BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n
39.  Further  considering what is stated in the petitions and the  counterfidavits, the Supreme Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “We  have  gone through the averments in the writ  petitions  and  those made in the counter-affidavits filed by the Director General  of Doordarshan and we have no hesitation in holding that  the  petitioners perform the same nature duties as those performed  by their  counter parts in the Film Division. When two  posts  under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only  identical, but  also involve the performance of the same of duties, it  will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the  matter  of pay. One of the directive principles of State  Policy,  as  embodied in clause (d) of Article 39 of the Constitution,  is  equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The provision of  Act, 39(d) has been relied upon by the petitioners. The directive  Principles  contained in Part-IV of the Constitution, though  not nforceable  by any Court, are intended to be implemented by  the  State  of  its  own accord so as to promote the  welfare  of  the
\n     people. Indeed, Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be  the  duty of the State to apply these principles in making  laws. Even  leaving out of our consideration Art. 39(d), the  principle  of “equal pay for equal work”, it not given effect to in the case  of one set of Government servants holding same or similar  posts,
\n     possessing  same qualifications and doing the same kind of  work,  as another set of Government servants, it would be discriminatory  and  violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such  disrimination has been made in respect of the petitioners, who  are he  Staff Artistes of Doordarshan, by not giving them  the  same
\n     scales  of  pay  as provided to their counterparts  in  the  Film  Division  under the same Ministry of Information &  Broadcasting. The  petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same  scales  of  pay as their counter parts in the Film Division.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “But the question is as to from which date they will be  entitled to  the scale of pay as prescribed for their counterparts in  the Film  Division. The petitioners have claimed that such scales  of pay should be admitted to them with effect from their  respective dates  of appointments. After having given a careful  thought  to this aspect, we are of the view that ends of justice will be  met  sufficiently, if such scales of pay are given to the  petitioners  with effect from the first day of the month of the year in  which each  writ  petition was filed in this Court except that  in  the
\n     case  of  Writ Petition (C) No. 1756 of 1986 such scales  of  pay shall  be given to the petitioners with effect from  December  1,  1983.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
40.  Eventually,  the  Supreme Court granted the relief  in  the  following
\nterms :-\n<\/p>\n
     “In the circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed.  The  Sound  Recordists, who are the petitioners in Writ  Petition  (C)  No.   974  of  1978,  shall  be  given  the  pay  scale  of   the  Recordist\/Sound  Recordist in the Film Division i.e., Rs  550-900  with effect from January 1, 1978. The Cameramen Grade-II, who are  the  petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 1239 of 1979, shall  be  given  the pay scale of the Cameraman of the Film Division  i.e.,  Rs. 650-960 with effect from August 1, 1979. The Lighting Assistnts\/Lightmen,  who are the petitioners in Writ  Petition(C)  No.   1756 of 1986, shall be given the scale of pay of Assistant Cameraman  in  the  Film Division i.e., Rs 425-700  with  effect  from
\n     December  1,  1983. The petitioners in all these  writ  petitions will also be entitled to the substituted scales of pay and conse-  quential  benefits. The respondents are directed to  disburse  to  the  petitioners the arrear amounts being the difference  in  the pay scales within four months from today.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Here also the ratio is entirely different and cannot be called in  aid r the purpose of the claim of the petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
41.  In  “Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers” Union Vs. Union of India  &  Others”, , the employees working under  the  Grih  Kalyan  Kendra
\nclaimed  parity  with other employees performing similar work in  NDMC  and other  departments of Delhi Administration. The Supreme  Court  reiterating the principle observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “Equal  pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the  Constitution  as  a fundamental right but in view of  the  Directive Principles  of  State Policy as contained in Art.  39(d)  of  the  Constitution “equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of  fundamental  right in service jurisprudence having regard to  the   constitutional  mandate  of equality in Arts. 14 and  16  of  the
\n     Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service  by  regularising casual employment within  a  reasonable  period  has been accepted by this Court as a constitutional  goal  to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a judge made  law  as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which  ensures  a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity  to  all and equal pay for equal work for  similarly  placed  employees  of  the State. This Court has zealously  enforced  the  fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of  decisions.  See : Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, ; Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under  P & T Department Vs. Union of India, ; Dhirendra Champli Vs. State of U.P., ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, ; R.D. Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi  Administration, ; Bhagwan Dass Vs. State  of Haryana,  ; Jaipal Vs.  State of Haryana, ; Dharwad  District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State of Karna-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     taka, . Therefore, the principle of equal pay for
\n     equal  work even in an establishment which is an  instrumentality
\n     of a State is applicable in its full vigour.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Dealing with the claim of the petitioner in that case in the light  of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it was observed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “The question then arises whether the respondents have  practiced      discrimination  in denying the employees of the Kendra pay  which the  Union  of India has been paying to  other  similarly  placed  employees  doing  the same or similar work. This question  is   of  primary  importance which requires  investigation  of  facts.  Unless, it is demonstrated that the employees of the Grih  Kalyan  Kendra  are  discriminated in matters relating to pay  and  other
\n     emoluments with the other similarly placed employees, the princile of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied. While  consid erng  this question, it is not necessary to find out  similarity   by mathematics formula but there must be a reasonable  similarity  in  the nature of work, performance of duties, the  qualification and the equality of work performed by them. It is permissible  to  have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts,  pay  scales,  value  of work and responsibility  and  experience.  The  classification  must, however, have a reasonable relation to  the object sought to be achieved. In Federation of All India  Customs  and Central Excise Stenographers Vs. Union of India, , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) observed at page 1297 of AIR :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “There may be qualitative differences as regards reliability  and  responsibility.  Functions may be the same but the  responsibilities make a difference, one cannot deny that often the difference is  a  matter  of degree and that there is an  element  of  value  judgment  by  those who are charged with  the  administration  in fixing  the  scales of pay and other conditions, of  service.  So  long  as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonable on  an  intelligible criteria which was a rational nexus with the  object  of  differentiation,  such  differentiation will  not  amount  to discrimination.  It is important to emphasis that equal  pay  for   equal  work is a concomitant of Article 14 of  the  Constitution.  But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will  be  a negation of that right.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Elaborating  the aforesaid observation the learned Judge  further  observed thus at page 1300 of AIR :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of  work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less  _  it  varies  from nature and culture of  employment.  The  problem about  equal pay cannot always be translated into a  mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be  sought or,  as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment  of  the  administrative authorities who are charged with  fixing  the  pay  scales has to be left with them and it cannot be  interfered  with  by  the Court unless it is demonstrated that either  it  is  irrational  or based on no basis or arrived mala fide  either  in   law or in fact.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Here  again, I am unable to see how this case could be of any  assistnce to the petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
42.  In “Chief Conservator of Forests and another, etc. etc., Vs. Jagannath aruti  Kondhare, etc. etc.”, , the Supreme Court  referred
\nto which it had decide:\n<\/p>\n
     “Two  questions in the main need our determination in this  batch  of  appeals which are by the Chief Conservator of Forests.  State  of  Maharashtra. The first and foremost question is whether  Forest,  Department of the State Government is an “Industry”  within  the meaning of section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947  (hereinafter `the Central Act’), which definition has been adopted by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and  Prevention  of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short `the State Act’). We  shall have then to address ourselves to the question  whether  in the cases at hand the employer, namely, the State  Government,  had  indulged in unfair labour practice visualised by item  6  of
\n     Schedule  IV  of  the State Act, as alleged  by  the  respondents  before the Industrial Court, Pune\/Ahmednagar. If these  questions  would be answered in affirmative, we would be required to consider  whether  the  directions given by  the  aforesaid  industrial  Courts need our interference.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The facts of that case are entirely different. It is not necessary  to iscuss them and this has absolutely no relevance to the facts and  circumstances of the instant case with reference to the claim of the  petitioners for pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 for the period from 1.1.73 to 18.2.1983.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
43.  This would take me to the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Gourab K. Banerjee.\n<\/p>\n
44.  In  “Union of India & Another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal”, ,  the  fixing of 1st of August of the year concerned as the  date  with reference  to which the eligibility of persons desirous of sitting in  competitive   examination  for  recruitment  to  the   Indian   Administrative Service\/Indian  Foreign Service etc., qua their age for which both  minimum and maximum is normally fixed, was challenged before the Supreme Court. The
\nSupreme Court had held :\n<\/p>\n
     “Having known the legal parameters within which we have to  function,  let it be seen whether fixation of 1st August  as  cut-off  date for determining the eligibility of applicants qua their  age can be held to be arbitrary despite preliminary examination being  conducted  before that date. As to why the examination, has  been  explained  in paragraph 3 of the special leave petition. The  sum  and substance of the explanation is that preliminary  examination is  only a screening test and marks obtained in this  examination  do  not count for determining the order of merit, for which  pur-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     pose  of marks obtained in the main examination, which  is  still  being held after 1st August, lone are material. In view of  this,  it  cannot be held that continuation of treating 1st  August,  as    the  cut-off  date, despite the Union c  Service  Commission having introduced the method of preliminary examination which  is held  before  1st August, can be said to be “very  wide  off  any  reasonable  mark”  or  so capricious or whimsical  as  to  permit  judicial interference.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In  the  instant case, the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 is  given  w.e.f. .2.1983 which was the date of resolution of the University Grants Commission.  It  cannot be said that giving effect to the decision from  that  is pricious and whimsical.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
45.  In  “Sher  Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others”, ,  the librarians employed in the University of Delhi claimed parity  in pay with the corresponding categories of teaching staff. The Supreme  Court held :\n<\/p>\n
     “After  a  serious and anxious consideration on  the  submissions  made  by the learned counsel for the appellants, according to  us there  appears  to be no rationale or any  justification  in  the  claim of parity between the teaching staff and the library  staff in  Delhi University and its colleges for the simple reason  that the  two  sets of employees belonged to different  categories  of  employees who stand on a different footing. The nature of duties,  workload,  experience  and responsibilities of the  two  sets  of  employees in question are totally different from each other.  The      teaching staff has to do some research work, deep study in  their  respective  subjects and to make preparations for the daily  lectures in the classrooms and other academic work while this is not  so in the case of library staff. The experience of library  staff  is  totally  different  from the one which is  required  for  the  teaching  staff.  Working pattern of the two  sets  of  employees cannot be said to be identical so as to claim parity between  the   library  staff. the experiance of library staff and the  teaching staff.  If the Government as a matter of policy had  equated  the  library  staff for the purposes of pay scales earlier for a  cer tain period as contended by the appellants, they should be thank-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ful  to the Government as they could not have claied the  parity as of right. In any case that was the decision of the  Government  which  had allowed the equation of pay scales during  the  period rom  1961  to  1.1.1973. Later, if the Government  had  taken  a  policy  decision to grant parity again with effect from  1.4.1980  and  not  with  retrospective effect from 1.7.1973  when  it  was disturbed  there  could be no litimate grievance for  the  same  because  the Government has the right to change its  policy  from  time  to  time, according to the  administrative  exigencies  and  demands  of  the relevant time. As a matter of  fact  the  courts  would  be slow in interfering with matters of  Government  policy
\n     except  where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala  fide or contrary to any statutory directions. There will be no  justification  for the Court to interfere with the policy of the  Govrnment merely on the ground of change in the policy. If  earlier   the  Government  took a policy decision to grant  parity  to  the  library  staff with the teaching staff it was the policy  of  the then Government and if for certain reasons the Government took  a different  policy decision to withdraw the parity and to  enforce it  again  with  effect from a certain date it will  again  be  a  matter  of policy of the Government and it is not for the  courts  to  interfere with such policy decisions of the Government.  Normally  the courts will not dictate the decision of the  statutory  authority  in exercise of its discretion and formulation  of  its
\n     policy.  The  Court will not direct the  statutory  authority  to  exercise  the  discretion in a particular  manner  not  expressly required by law. The Court can only command the statutory authority  by a Writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising  the discretion according to law. This was also the view expressed  by the  Court in U.P. SRTC Vs. Md. Ismail, . In  the present case, we find that there is no judicial or quasi judicial  duty  or any obligation imposed on the Government to  equate  the  library staff with the teaching staff, on the basis of which  the  enforcement thereof could be claimed by the appellants. In such a  situation  it  cannot  be said that the Government  did  not  act airly  or acted mala fide so as to call for any interference  by this Court invoking the power of judicial review.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
46.  According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Gourab K. Banerjee, the principle laid down herein would apply to the facts of the instant  case. The University Grants Commission took the decision and  that was  given  effect to and the University Grants Commission  had  taken  the decision after considering the whole history of the service.\n<\/p>\n
47.  In “Dr. P.N. Puri & Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others”, , similar question was posed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealing with the point held :\n<\/p>\n
     “The  petitioner  filed  a writ petition in the  High  Court  for direction to pay equal pay on a par with Medical Officers at  Rs. 2200-4000. There was a long controversy regarding the entitlement of  the  petitioners and their companions for the said  scale  of  pay.  Ultimately, it was referred to the Anomaly Committee  which  had  decided in its proceedings dated 1.1.1995 accepting the  new  pay scales of different posts in the urban local bodies,  namely, persons  like the petitioners would be paid the scale of  pay  at s.  2200-4000  and recommended to upgrade the  said  scale  from 7.11.1994  and to pay the scales of pay from that date. The  Government  has accepted the above recommendation and issued  orders
\n     on  16.2.995.  Calling that order in question,  the  petitioners have  filed  the writ petition seeking payment  of  arrears  from  1986.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Initially, directions were given by the Court to consider why the petitioners were not being paid w.e.f 1.1.1986. After  consideration  again,  the respondent filed an  affidavit  explaining  the circumstances.  Undoubtedly, one of the circumstances stated  was  that previously the petitioners were unequals and were not  being  paid  the same pay and, therefore, they were not entitled to  the  same scale of pay. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition by order dated 21.9.1995.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners  that  the  reason  given by the respondents is not relevant  since  the  Anomaly  Committee recommended that they are performing the  same  duties  on a par with the Medical Officers. Therefore,  the  High  Court  ought to have granted them the scale of pay from 1986.  As  stated earlier, reasons given in the counter-affidavit may not be  the correct reasons but the Anomaly Committee had recommended for  payment  of the same scale of pay to the persons like  the  peti tioners  w.e.f. 7.11.1994. It is well-settled law that  fixing  a
\n     date  is  not arbitrary violating Article 14. It is  settled  law  that  the  authorities cannot pick up from their hat  and  fix  a date.  The  question, therefore, which arises for decision  is  :  whether the date fixed is arbitrary? The question was referred to  the Anomaly Committee to advise the Government as to the fixation of  the scale of pay to which persons like petitioners  would  be  entitled to. The Committee had gone into the question and  recommended  the  scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000 to  persons  like  the  petitioners and also recommended to give effect from the date  on which they had decided, namely, 7.11.1994. The Government  having accepted  the same had given effect from that date.  Under  those circumstances,  it cannot be said that fixation of date is  arbi-trary violating Article 14.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
48.  In  “University  Grants Commission Vs. Sadhana  Chaudhary  &  Others”, A href=”javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp(‘\/citation\/crosscitations.asp’,”,’1′);”>, the point relating to the choice of a date was  considered. The Supreme Court held :\n<\/p>\n
     “We find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions of  Shri  Banerjee. It is settled law that the choice of a date as a  basis for classification cannot always be dubgbed as arbitrary even  if  no  particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it  is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it  is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When  it  is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is  no  mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the  decision  of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can
\n     be  said  that it is very wide off the reasonable  mark.  (See  :  Union  of India Vs. Parameswaran Match Works,  and Sushma Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State of  Rajasthan,   In the present case, the date,  31.12.1993,  as   fixed by notification dated 21.6.1995, in the matter of grant  of  exemption  from the eligibility test for appointment on the  post   of lecturer has a reasonable basis keeping in view the time taken
\n     in  submitting the Ph.d. thesis or obtaining M. Phil.  degree  by  candidates  who  had undertaken the study for  Ph.D.  or  M.Phil.  degree  prior  to the issuance of the 1991  Regulations  and  the  date, 31.12.1993, cannot be held to be capricious or whimsical or  wide  off the reasonable mark. The High Court of Punjab and  Haryana  has  proceeded on the basis that the cut-off date  for  the purpose  of granting exemption from eligibility test should  have nexus  with the date of the advertisement  inviting  applications for  appointment on the post of Lecturers. The High Court was  in  error  in taking this view. The exemption from  eligibility  test  that  has  been granted under para 5 of the  advertisement  dated
\n     23.1.1995 is relatable to the introduction of the requirement  of eligibility  test in the 1991 Regulations. The object  underlying the  grant of exemption is to mitigate the resultant hardship  to  candidates who had registered for Ph.D. degree or had joined  the  course for M.Phil. degree on the basis of the minimum  qualifications prescribed under the 1982 Regulations. The validity of  the   fixation  of cut-off date for the purpose of grant  of  exemption
\n     from the eligibility test has to be considered with reference  to the date of issuance of the 1991 Regulations and not with  reference  to  the  date of advertisement  inviting  applications  for  appointment  on the post of Lecturers. We are, therefore,  unable  to  uphold the direction of the High Court that it would  not  be necessary  to appear in the eligibility test for  candidates  who  have applied or\/are applying for the Lecturers, posts pursuant to  the advertisement dated 23.1.1995 if they have obtained M.  Phil.   degrees or submitted Ph.D. thesis before 31.12.1994, i.e.,  prior  to  the date of the publication of advertisement dated  23.1.1995  and  the further direction to the Haryana Public Service  Commission  and  State of Haryana to ensure that as and when  any  such advertisement is issued, they would bear in mind that the  eligi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     bility  dates be not far off from the date of advertisement.  The exemption from the requirement regarding clearing the eligibility  test has to be confined within the limits indicated in the amendment  introduced  in the 1991 Regulations by  notification  dated 21.6.1995.  Respondents 1 and 2 who had moved the High  Court  by filing the writ petition obtained their M.Phil. degrees prior  to  31.12.1993. They would be entitled to exemption from clearing the    eligibility  test  under  the   of  the  notification  dated  15.6.1995. The decision of the High Court, insofar as it  relates  to the said respondents, is not required to be disturbed and  is, herefore, maintained.” LOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
49.  In “Rao Somashekara & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another”, , the petitioners before the Supreme Court were Secondary  School Teachers  in the State of Karnataka working in Government  and  Government aided  Secondary  Schools. The Supreme Court had referred  to  the  circumstances to which the question was mooted. The same is as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “Certain Secondary Grade Teachers in the former State of  Hyderabad  were  allotted to the State of Karnataka  as  on  1.11.1956. After reorganisation, the corresponding posts in former State  of  Mysore  were  equated with the posts of the  allotted  personnel.  There  was  revision  of  pay scales on  1.1.1957  and  again  on  1.1.1961 but the disparity in pay scales was allowed to continue.   This  anomally was continued till 1.1.1970 _ for nearly  fourteen  years, when for the first time under the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised  Pay)  Rules, 1970 concerned which came  into  force  on 1.1.1970,  based  on the report of the Pay Commission  headed  by   Justice  Tukol, the scales were brought on a par with  scales  of
\n     allotted Hyderabad officers prospectively by enhancing the scales  of all the Karnataka teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1970. But the  grievance  of  the Secondary School Teachers of Government of Karnataka  for  the period from 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969 inued and has not been  removed. That is the subject of these writ petitions.”\n<\/p>\n
50.  In  paragraphs 11 & 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court  dealt  with the case of the respondents in the following terms :-\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is  to  be  noticed that  in  these  writ  petitions,  after 1.11.1956,  the disparities in the scales of pay  continued  till    1.1.1970  and  it was only from the date that, on  the  basis  of Justice Tukol Commission Report, the scales of the  Mysore\/Karna-taka  Secondary School Teachers were brought on a par with  those
\n     of the Secondary School Teachers of the erstwhile Hyderabad State allotted  to  the State of Karnataka. In other words,  the  State took  about  fourteen years to set right the disparities.  As  to  whether  any  inquiry  is necessary for  deciding  about  hostile discrimination, the petitioners contend that there is no  dispute  because the posts in the allotted areas of Hyderabad State and of  Karnataka  were  equated soon after 1956. Question  therefore  is whether,  in the writ petitions filed in this Court in  1991,  we are compelled to interfere?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We  are of the view that the State Government had before  it  the  report  of  the Commission and on that basis it took  a  decision  that  the disparities should stand eliminated prospectively  from  1.1.1970  and not retrospectively from 1.1.1957. The question  as   to  whether  the date from which the scales ought  to  have  been  equated  should be 1.1.1970 or an interior or a later date was  a  matter  which  had to be arrived at by taking  all  factors  into
\n     account. It will be difficult for this Court to decide as to from what date the continuance of the existing scales should be treated as discriminatory or the continuance would lose its  temporary character arising out of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation  Act.  It may be that the State of Karnataka felt that the  grievnce  of the non-allotted Primary School Teachers whose  salaries  were  lesser than the salaries of non-allotted  Secondary  School Teachers  was a matter of grave concern requiring redressal  even  as  late as 1979 or 1986. Merely because the grievances  of  non allotted  primary teachers were reminded even after  considerable  lapse of time, we cannot say that grievances of Secondary  School
\n     Teachers _ even if it was late _ should have also been  redressed for  the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969. Above all, the  financial  burden  involved was also a matter of relevant consideration.  We are  not  therefore  inclined to hold that the  cut-off  date  of  1.1.1970  fixed after the report of Justice Tukol Commission,  in regard to Secondary School Teachers, is arbitrary or violative of  Article 14. In any event, principle of laches applies equally  to  applications  under  Article 32 of  the  Constitution  of  India (Rabindranath Bose Vs. Union of India, .”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
51.  This  was relied on by the learned counsel for the second  respondent, Mr.  Gourab  K. Banerjee in support of the case of the  second  respondent. According  to the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Gourab  K.\n<\/p>\n
Banerjee,  the University Grants Commission, after taking into account  all facts, had taken the decision to give the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 to  the petitioners and that was given effect to w.e.f. 19.2.1983. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the petitioners cannot claim pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 from 1.1.1973.\n<\/p>\n
52.  In “Vice Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technolo-\n<\/p>\n
gy  & Another Vs. Dr. Kewala Nand & Others , the  Supreme Court  had referred to the circumstances under which the appeal had  arisen before the Supreme Court. The same reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Civil  Appeal No. 3751 of 1996 has been filed by the  G.B.  Pant      University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar in the State      of UP against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High  Court under which Research Assistants working in the  appellant-univer-sity  have been declared as entitled to payment of salary in  the  pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and the subsequently revised  pay-scale of  Rs.  2200-4000 from the date from which the  said  pay-scales  have been given to the Research Assistants of two other  agricul tural universities in the State, namely, Narendra Deva University
\n     of  Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad and Chandrashekhar  Azad University  of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur.  Civil  appeal   No. 6724 of 1996 is an appeal filed by the State of U.P.  against the  same  judgment and order of the Allahabad High  Court  while  Civil  Appeal  No. 3752 of 1996 is filed by  the  Association  of Teachers in the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology  against  the same judgment and order of  the  Allahabad  High  Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the appellant-university there are two cadres in the  research wing. There is a cadre of Research Assistants and there is  cadre of  Senior  Research Assistants. Prior to  1.4.1978  the  minimum ualification  prescribed  for a Research Assistant  was  a  B.Sc  degree  while the minimum qualification prescribed for  a  Senior Research  Assistant  was  an M.Sc. degree. The scale  of  pay  of  Research  Assistants was Rs. 350-700. With effect  from  1.4.1978  the pay-scale of Research Assistants was revised to Rs.  500-900. The pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 which was given to Senior  Research Assistants  has  been revised with effect from  1.1.1986  to  Rs.  2200-4000.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
53.  Dealing with the point, the Supreme Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
     “Therefore,  the High Court has proceeded on a  wrong  assumption that all Research Assistants in the other universities were given from  inception the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600. In the  other  two  universities,  there  was no separate cadre  of  Senior  Research  Assistants.  Therefore,  those possessing an  M.Sc.  degree  were  given  a higher pay-scale of Rs. 500-900 which was also the  payscale  of Research Assistants in the appellant-university at  the    relevant  time.  When there are two separate cadres  of  Research  Assistants  and  Senior Research Assistants, the pay of  the  two
\n     cannot be directed to be identical when separate minimum qualifiations are prescribed and there is a separate selection for  the two  cadres. Nevertheless, the Research Assistants in the  appelant-university  have, in fact, been given, with the approval  of  the  Government, the same pay-scale as Senior Research  Assistant  with  effect  from 12.12.1989 it they possess an M.Sc.  degree  -after they were declared as teachers. There is no legal basis for   the  claim of the Research Assistants for the same pay-scale  for he period 1.4.1978 to 12.12.1989.”\n<\/p>\n
54.  The  principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases  cited  by Mr.  Gourab  K. Banerjee, the learned counsel for  the  second  respondent, would  apply to the facts of the instant case, the having regard  to  those principles,  I  am of the view that the petitioners cannot  claim  the  pay scale  of  Rs. 650-1200 w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and what has been  granted  to  the petitioners  is  absolutely in accordance with law. Accordingly,  the  writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
55.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IIIAD Delhi 503, 2000 (56) DRJ 1 Author: K.Ramamoorthy Bench: K Ramamoorthy ORDER K.Ramamoorthy, J. 1. There are ten petitioners. The first petitioner is The ‘College Section Officers’ Association (University of Delhi). Petitioner No. 2 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCollege Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"College Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":11459,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\",\"name\":\"College Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"College Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"College Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999"},"wordCount":11459,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999","name":"College Section Officers ... vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-23T13:59:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/college-section-officers-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-13-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"College Section Officers … vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 July, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}