Judgment:
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.3052/2009 (S) Dr. Renu Shrivastava & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ____________________________________________________________ Smt. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Rohan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________________ Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi ____________________________________________________________ ORDER
(_____/09/2012) The grievance put forth by the petitioners in this petition is that though the issue relating to grant of similar pay scale as is approved by the University Grant Commission (herein after referred to as 'UGC') for the teaching staff of the Colleges to the persons like petitioners has been put to rest by this Court and the said order is duly affirmed by the Apex Court, yet the said benefit is not extended to the petitioners.
2. Briefly the claim of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed in the School Education Department on the teaching post of Lecturer and Upper Division Teachers. However, subsequently the petitioners were taken to be posted in the College of Education against the post of Lecturer. The pay scale of the post of Lecturer in the College of Education is Rs.2200 – 4000 (revised to Rs.8000 – 13500) but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioners and they have been given the revised pay scale 2 of Rs.5500 – 9000. It is contended that the issue in this respect was raised before the M.P. State Administration Tribunal by some of the similarly situated persons. The claim was decided by the Tribunal against which a writ petition was filed before this Court by the State Government. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court and ultimately the matter went up to the Apex Court where the Civil Appeal filed by the respondents-State was disposed of with certain modification. Even after disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Apex Court, similar treatment is not extended to the petitioners, though various writ petitions in this respect have been filed. The law is well settled by the Apex Court that similarly placed are to be treated similarly and though similar treatment is extended by the orders passed by this Court in other writ petitions, yet the benefit is not granted to the petitioners, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. Upon service of notices of the writ petition, return has been filed by the respondents. The fact relating to the passing of the order by the Tribunal, filing of the writ petition and the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, are not disputed by the respondents but in detail it is submitted by them that the petitioners are not identically placed persons to those, who have been granted relief by the Tribunal and as such the same benefit is not available to them. It is very categorically contended by the respondents in their return that since the petitioners were appointed in the School Education Department, the College of Education is a part and parcel of School Education Department where the specific posts are sanctioned, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the persons, who were appointed in the other Colleges and claim the higher pay scale as approved by the UGC. It is contended that the claim of the petitioners is not identical and, therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to them in terms of the order passed by the Apex 3 Court. It is reiterated by the respondents that the petitioners were posted in the very same department in the Training Institute established and, therefore, the petitioners would not get the benefit of pay scales, which are applicable to the teaching staff of the Higher Education Department. It is contended that there was a complete bifurcation of the Department of Education in two separate departments, one the School Education and the other one the Higher Education in which the colleges are included. Since the college under the scheme of the School Education Department is not one receiving any grant from the UGC, the similar pay scale is not to be given to the petitioners and no claim of parity can be made. It is, thus, contended that the petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
5. The sole contention put by the petitioners is that the controversy has been put at rest by the orders of the Tribunal passed in an original application of similarly situated persons. For the purposes of verification of this fact, the order passed in the said original application is required to be examined and such an order is looked into. The claim was decided by the Administrative Tribunal in bunch of cases on 06.01.1999. Certain writ petition filed before this Court, which were transmitted to the Administrative Tribunal on its formation were also decided along with O.A. No.179/1991. The record of the said original application is examined. The petitioners in those cases were Librarians and their claim was that they were working in the Colleges, being run by the School Education Department. However, there were different pay scales for all the Librarians working in different institutions. Subsequently, recommendations made by the UGC with 4 respect to grant of higher pay scale were accepted by the State Government and this benefit was required to be made available to the persons like petitioners in those cases. The entire consideration was with respect to the fact that whether Librarians working in a college or a school would get different pay scale. Since such a relief was directed by the Tribunal, writ petition was preferred by the State Government before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court again examined the question of parity and came to the conclusion that those, who were appointed in the Colleges as Librarians, were to be equated with the Librarians appointed in other institutions and since a common pay scale was prescribed, the same would be available to them. Against this order of the Division Bench of this Court, Civil Appeals were filed by the State Government before the Apex Court and while deciding Civil Appeal Nos.290/2003, 291/2003 and 292/2003 on 07.08.2007, the Apex Court passed the order in the following manner : “Be that as it may, since in the present case, limited notice was issued regarding the date from which the parity should be granted, we need not go into the question of deciding whether there is parity or not between the respondents and their counter-parts working in the other government colleges. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we make the order of this Court dated 7.10.2002 absolute and modify the orders of the State Administrative Tribunal and that of the High Court and direct that the respondents shall be entitled to the parity in payscales from the date of the impugned order of the High Court, i.e. 1.3.2002. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.”
. The Apex Court has not at all examined the parity in between the Librarians working in the School Education Department and the Librarians working in the Government Colleges. Whatever decision was rendered by the Tribunal as was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court was also 5 treated to be affirmed by the Apex Court. Even this issue was not left open to be considered in any other litigation.
6. As against this, not the claim of the petitioners is required to be examined. Undisputedly, earlier there was only one department known as Education Department in which both the branches, the School Education and the Higher Education, were there. The State Government issued a notification bifurcating the School Education Department and the Higher Education Department separately. While the School Education Department was entrusted for looking after the School education including the teachers training, the Higher Education Department was entrusted with the higher education in the Collegiate Branch and all other ancillary matters. It will not be out of place to mention here that in context of this, the rules were separately framed by the State Government in the year 1982 itself and published in the Gazette in the year 1984. The said rules governing the services in the School Education Department are known as Madhya Pradesh Education Services (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982 (herein after referred to as 'Rules'). All those, who were appointed in the School Education Department were said to be governed by the new rules after coming into force of these rules. The mode of recruitment was also prescribed in the rules. The posts as sanctioned in the Rules were mentioned in the schedule. The Schedule-I of the Rules contains two parts. Part-A contains administration where the posts of Directors, Additional Directors, Principals, Joint Directors etc. were sanctioned. The posts of Professors were also sanctioned in the said part. There were certain posts of Lecturer also said to be sanctioned under the said part of the Schedule. There were certain training institutions and for which the posts were mentioned in Part-B of the Schedule. There are sanctioned posts of Principal in the College of Education, the 6 posts of Assistant Professor and the posts of Lecturer are mentioned in the said schedule. The post of Lecturer mentioned in the College of Education carries the pay scale of Rs.1000 – 1800 whereas the post of Lecturer in the School carries the pay scale of Rs.925-1500. As per the mode of recruitment, there is quota for recruitment prescribed. The qualifications for such appointments are also mentioned and only those, who are qualified, are to be appointed on the post. It is not in dispute that the mode of appointment by transfer from amongst the members of the similar cadre is also one of the modes for recruitment prescribed under the Rules.
7. Undisputedly the petitioners were appointed in the School Education Department as Lecturer but in the pay scale, which is not the pay scale prescribed for the post of Lecturer in the College. The persons like petitioners were required to discharge the duties as Lecturers in the School by imparting education in the schools only. However, since there was paucity of the staff to mann the post of Lecturer in the College of Education established by the respondent School Education Department, the petitioners were asked to perform the duties as Lecturers in the College of Education. It appears that only because the petitioners were qualified for such posting, orders in this respect were issued otherwise there was no occasion to post the petitioners on a post as Lecturer of College if they were not eligible. Therefore, it has to be treated as if the petitioners were recruited on transfer on the post of Lecturer in the College of Education. They were performing the duties of the Lecturer of College of Education and this fact is not denied.
8. not the question would be whether such a college established by the respondents-State can be treated to be a fulfledged college as is required to be established by the Higher Education Department. Undisputedly the college 7 established by the respondent School Education Department is required to impart education for the purposes of grant of degree by the University in Education. If the college is to be established for imparting education for the purposes of grant of degree of Bachelor of Education, every such college is required to be affiliated with the University concerned, as is the necessary requirement of law. If a college of training is established by the respondents-State in the Education Department, the said college is required to be affiliated with the University otherwise the students in the said college will not be allowed to take part in the University examinations. Therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to provide the same standard of education in the College of Education established by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that their College of Education is not required to maintain the similar status that of the college of Higher Education. On the other hand, to maintain parity, the State Government has issued notification on 25th December, 1982 to transfer all the Colleges of Education and other institutions from the Directorate of Public Instructions of the School Education Department to the Madhya Pradesh State Education Research & Training Council (SCERT). This further indicates that there is no doubt that the College of Education where the persons like petitioners were taken on posting, was in fact a college in all sense and the standard of education in the same was also to be maintained in the like manner. Same was the situation when parity was claimed by the Librarians posted in the Colleges and such a parity was granted by the Tribunal. This was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and was not interfered by the Apex Court even when the Civil Appeal of the respondents-State was decided.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the pay scale of the post of 8 Lecturer/Assistant Professor working in the Colleges of Education. Since a higher pay scale was sanctioned to the Lecturers/Assistant Professors of the Colleges established by the School Education Department, upon posting of the petitioners on the said post, they would be entitled to the said pay scale and not to the pay scale on which substantially they were appointed before their posting in the Colleges.
10. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the salary of the petitioners in the pay scale applicable to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the College of Education as is sanctioned by the respondents in Schedule of the Rules of 1982, as revised time to time, from the date the writ petition was filed before this Court by the petitioners claiming parity. Arrears of salary be calculated and be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc