ORDER
H.L. Gokhale, J.
1. This writ petition by a lecturer working as a part-time lecturer in two colleges (under two different managements) affiliated to the University of Mumbai, seeks correct emoluments and retirement benefits on par with a full time lecturer affiliated to the University. The two colleges are aided colleges and, therefore, the financial responsibility is that of the State of Maharashtra which is joined as respondent No. 1. University of Mumbai is respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is the Principal of Narsee Manjee College of Commerce and Economics, a private college run by a Trust. Respondent No. 4 is the Principal of Elphinstone college which is run by the State Government. Narsee Manjee ('N.M. college' for short) and Elphinstone are the two colleges concerned in this petition.
2. The petitioner has done his M.A. in Hindi as the principal subject from the University of Mumbai. He obtained second class in the Graduation as well as in the Master's examination. It is his case that he worked as a part-time lecturer of Hindi in Elphinstone college from 1st July 1970 to 30th April 2002. Simultaneously he put in part-time service in different institutions from time to time as follows:
(i) In the senior college of Anjuman college from 16.6.1970 to 15.6.1972.
(ii) Part-time lecturer in senior college of N.M. college from 21.8.1972 to 16.6.1977.
(iii) Part-time lecturer in junior college of N.M. college from 16.6.1977 to 18th June 1979.
(iv) As a lecturer on clock hours basis in senior as well as junior college of N.M. college from 18th June 1979 to 12th August 1981.
(v) Full time lecturer in junior college of N.M. college from 13th August 1981 to 20th June 1983.
The petitioner's services in junior college of N.M. college were terminated on 20th June 1983. He filed an appeal to the School Tribunal which held it to be not maintainable. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1699 of 1985 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 19.2.1987, whereby he was reinstated from 20.6.1983. This order was challenged by the State Government by filing Appeal No. 843 of 1987. The said appeal was partly allowed by the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 12.4.1990. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to the post of full time lecturer. The Court held that he was entitled to the post of part-time lecturer which he thereafter held from 1st June 1990. In that petition, the petitioner had tried to claim the post which was meant for a reserved category candidate and the Division Bench held him to be disentitled to that post. He was held entitled to hold the part-time post from February 1975 in view of the Minister's statement made in Assembly on 7th February 1975 that those teachers who had become surplus as a result of new education pattern of 10+2+3 were to be protected. The petitioner had, however, worked as a full time lecturer in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge. He was, therefore, directed to be paid remuneration of the full time lecturer for that period until 30th May 1990.
3. From 1st June 1990 the petitioner worked continuously as a part-time lecturer in Narsee Manjee college until he retired therefrom on 31.12.2002.
(i) Thus although the petitioner worked as a part-time lecturer in colleges other than Elphinstone college from 16.6.1970 till 31.12.2002, he had a break after 15th June 1972 until 21.8.1972 when he joined N.M. college.
(ii) He is claiming the benefits for the period for which he has worked in Narsee Manjee college continuously thereafter from 21.8.1972. He is not claiming for the earlier period put in Anjuman college earlier.
(iii) During this period also he had worked on hourly basis from 18th June 1979 to 12th August 1981 i.e. over two years in N.M. college.
(iv) From 13th August 1981 to 20th June 1983 he worked as a full time lecturer in N.M. college. At that very time, he was working as a part time lecturer in Elphinstone college and the Government has made a grievance that he did not inform the Elphinstone college about his working as a full time lecturer in the N.M. college.
(v) Again it is material to note that in view of the petition filed by him being Writ Petition No. 1699 of 1985 and the order passed thereon by a single Judge he worked as a full time lecturer and received the remuneration as a full time lecturer during the period 19th February 1987 till 31st May 1990.
4. The petitioner is claiming the following reliefs:
(i) The difference in the salary and allowances for the period 1.1.1973 till 20th August 1986 in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 after deducting the salary which was paid to him. He has no grievance with respect to the salary paid by the Elphinstone college. His grievance is that he was not paid the correct salary and allowances by the N.M. college and that the college paid him salary all throughout in the grade of Rs. 500-900. Thus, he is seeking the difference between what was payable to the full time lecturer after considering two part time services as one full time service and after deducting what was actually paid to him. He is agreeable for the deduction of the amounts paid to him as a full time lecturer by N.M. college during 13th August 1981 till 20th June 1983.
(ii) From 21st August 1986 he is making a claim until 31st December 1995 for the salary and allowances in the revised grade i.e. Rs. 3700-5700. He is agreeable for the deduction of the amounts paid to him as a full time lecturer when he worked as such under the above-referred orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1699 of 1985 until 31st May 1990.
(iii) From 1.1.1996 onwards he is claiming the revised grade of Rs. 12000-18300.
5. The justification of the petitioner is based on three decisions of the University of Mumbai. The first is its circular dated 31st March 1970. This circular laid down that where a person was working as a part time lecturer in two colleges irrespective of whether the two colleges were conducted by the same Managing Body or not, the total emoluments shall be the same as a full time lecturer. Clause (i) of this circular is material for our purpose. This Clause (i) reads as follows:
CIRCULAR In supersession of this office circulars No. Aff/Recog/405 dated 13th July, 1968 and No. Aff/Recog/864 dated 30th May, 1969 on the subject, the principals of constituent colleges in Arts (including education), Science and Commerce, are hereby informed that the Senate at their meeting held on 13th March, 1970 laid down that with retrospective effect from 1st November, 1969, the emoluments of part-time teachers, part-time demonstrator and part-time tutors shall be as under:
(i) the total emoluments of a part-time teacher in Arts (including education), a Science or a Commerce College shall be half of the pay plus half of the Dearness Allowance admissible on the pay of a full-time teacher at every stage of the grade in the corresponding category, provided that in the case of a person who works as a part-time teacher in two colleges irrespective of whether the two colleges are conducted by the same managing body / society or not, the total emoluments of the person in the two colleges taken together shall be the same as total emoluments of a full-time teacher in a college.
6. This circular was followed by Statute 449 framed by the University and having received the accent of the Governor, it became effective from 20th June 1987. In the compendium of the relevant statutes framed by the University the terms and conditions of the services of the teachers are included in Chapter-2. Statute 449 deals with the part-time teachers in time scale of pay. This statute reads as follows:
Part-time teachers in time-scale of pay Section 449(1) The provisions of the Statutes applicable to full-time teachers shall be made applicable mutatis mutandis to part-time teachers also except for the following:
(a) The overall work-load of a part-time of pay shall be not less than 20 clock hours in a week. The maximum class-room instruction work of a part-time teacher in the colleges in the Faculties of Arts (including Education), Science and Commerce shall be more than half of the work-load of a full-time teacher, viz. 11 periods of 45 minutes' duration per week subject to the minimum work-load of 8 periods of 45 minutes' duration per week This means that a part-time teacher entitled to the revised time-scale of pay shall engage a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 11 periods per week. A part-time Lecturer shall be assigned co-curricular and/or administrative work related to training programmes and other curricular activities besides teaching and other work assigned to him but on a pro-rata basis in relation to the work-load assigned to a full-time Lecturer.
(b) Part-time Lecturers who have adequate work-load shall be eligible for the pay-scale of Rs. 350-20-550-25-650-Assessment-25-800 (half of the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1,600 admissible to full-time Lecturers in the colleges) plus Dearness Allowance, if any, at the rates laid down from time to time by the Government of Maharashtra for part-time Government servants.
(c) The remuneration to part-time Lecturers who have inadequate work-load shall be regulated at the rate prescribed from time to time. Provided, however, that such part-time Lecturers in the subjects of Accountancy and Mercantile Law as were in service on January 1, 1973, and have exercised an option to retain the previously admissible emoluments (as on December 31, 1972) instead of the pay-scale of Rs. 350-800 shall be continued to be assigned work-load of 6 periods per week.
(d) The work-load of a part-time Demonstrator in a time-scale of pay shall not exceed 12 clock hours of demonstration work per week.
(e) Part-time Demonstrators who have adequate work-load shall be eligible for the pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-350-12 & 1/2-450 (half of the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 admissible to full-time Demonstrators in the colleges) plus Dearness Allowance, if any, at the rates laid down from time to time by the Government of Maharashtra for part-time Government servants.
f) The remuneration to part-time Demonstrators who have inadequate work-load shall be regulated at the rate prescribed from time to time.
(2) Ordinarily a teacher accepting part-time work in more than one college or institution shall be permitted to do so only if his total work-load in the colleges and institutions taken together does not exceed the maximum work-load assigned to a full-time teacher.
(3) Part-time teachers shall be entitled to all kinds of leave to which full-time teachers are entitled in accordance with Section 425 subject to the condition that the quantum of casual leave in a year being limited to 8 days.
(4) A part-time teacher appointed in two colleges managed by the same Government Body shall be deemed to be a full-time teacher in any one of the colleges for all purposes.
7. Thus, as can be seen, this statute lays down that the provisions of the statutes applicable to the full-time teachers shall be made applicable mutatis mutandis to part-time teachers with six exceptions laid down in Clause (i) thereof. Clause (a) lays down that the work-load of the part-time lecturers shall not be less than 20 clock hours in a week. It speaks about their work-load. The part-time lecturer has to attend the co-curricular and administrative work also on a pro-rata basis. Clause (b) lays down the pay-scale of the part-time teachers and it is stated as half of the pay scales of the full-time teachers. Clause (c) provides for a situation where the part-time lecturers have inadequate work. Clauses (d), (e) and (f) deal with the part-time demonstrators, with which we are not concerned in the present matter. However, the provisions in Clauses (d), (e) and (f) are similar to Clauses (a), (b) and (c). Clause (2) provides that a part-time lecturer can work in more than one college but his total work-load will not be more than that of a full-time lecturer. Clause (3) lays down that he will be entitled to all kinds of leave which is available to the full-time lecturers though Casual Leave is restricted only to 8 days. Clause (4) is relevant for our purposes which deals with the part-time teachers appointed in two colleges run by the same Governing Body. It is stated that he shall be deemed to be a full-time teacher in any one of the colleges for all purposes. The submission of the petitioner is that the University Circular of 31st March 1970 clearly laid down that where a part-time lecturer works in two colleges run by two different Managing Bodies, his total emoluments will not be more than that of a full-time lecturer, meaning thereby he is entitled to the salary equivalent to that of the full-time teacher. His further submission is that Statute 449 which is passed with the accent of the Governor clearly says that the provisions of all the statutes applicable to the full-time teachers will apply to the part-time teachers mutatis mutandis. Clause (4) of Statute 449 makes an additional provision where a part-time lecturer is working in the two colleges of the same Governing Body. In that case, it is laid down that he shall be deemed to be a full time teacher in any one of the colleges for all purposes. Clause (2) of Statute 449 lays down that the total work-load in two colleges together will not exceed that of a full time teacher. Clause (1)(b) provides that part-time lecturers are to be paid exactly half the pay plus Dearness Allowance. Obviously, it means where a part-time lecturer works in two colleges, he should be read as eligible to receive the full salary with Dearness Allowance payable to a full-time lecturer at the rate laid down by the Government of Maharashtra from time to time.
8. The third circular of the University relied upon is dated 22.12.1989 which reads as follows:
C I R C U L A R A reference is invited to this office Circular No. CONCOL/431, dated 19th October, 1989, and Principals of the affiliated aided partially aided and unaided colleges in Arts, Science, Commerce and Education other than those managed and maintained by the State Government and the University, are hereby informed that a number of queries are being received from teachers rising doubts regarding (i) counting teaching experience at the college level as Tutor / Demonstrator / Method Master (ii) counting services of lecturers belonging to P-1, P-2 and P-3 categories, (iii) waiving of two refresher courses/summer institute and (iv) counting of teaching experience as a part-time lecturer, for the purpose of placing a lecturer in the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 and selection grade of Rs. 3700-5700/Reader's post.
It is hereby clarified for the information of the teachers of the colleges that while forwarding the recommendations of the Assessment Committees to the Director of Education, the University will write to the D.E. that the experience of a lecturer as a tutor/demonistrator/Method Master should be counted for determining placement of a lecturer in the Senior Scale/ Selection Grade/Reader's post, since according to the provisions of the Bombay University Act, 1974, Section 2(30) a full-time Demonstrator, Tutor and Master of Method have been included in the definition of the term 'teacher'. Similarly the Director of Education will be informed that the services rendered by P-1, P-2 and P-3 category teachers in Junior Colleges have been taken into account for determining the total length of service of a teacher. In addition, the teachers who were transferred from senior college to junior college due to the introduction of 10+2+3 pattern of education and subsequently transferred to the senior college, the services rendered by such teachers in Junior college are also taken into account for the purpose of placement of a teacher in the higher grade.
As regards waving of two refresher courses/summer Institute, it may be stated that as per the Government Resolution No. NGC 1289/(1605)/UNI-4, dated 15th December 1989, it has been laid down by the Government of Maharashtra that the Lecturers, Library and Physical Education staff, who fulfil the date of the above-mentioned G.R. all the remaining conditions, for placement in the senior scale/promotion to the selection grade may be so placed/promoted with effect from the dates on which they satisfied all the other conditions with the stipulation that they will have to participate in Refresher Courses/Summer Institutes of requisite duration, within a maximum period of four years commencing from the date of issue of the above-mentioned G.R. Failure to participate in Refresher Courses / Summer Institutes of requisite duration within the period of 4 years, shall entail stoppage, with permanent effect, of increments accruing after the said period, until the requirement is fulfilled, whereupon the next increment will be released. Persons placed in the senior scale by virtue of the above concession, who complete service of 16 years, in their respective posts, during the period of said 4 years, will be promoted to selection grade only after they fulfil the requirement of participation in two Refresher Courses Summer Institutes of approximately 4 weeks' duration. Regarding counting of service of a lecturer, who had worked as a part-time lecturer, the Director of Education will be informed that the University is of the opinion that a lecturer who has worked as a part-time lecture at two places, his services should be counted as one full-time lecturer. Similarly a person who has worked for 2 years as part-time lecturer, his service should be counted as 1 year full-time service for the purpose of his assessment for placing him in the higher grade.
The Principals are requested to bring this fact to the notice of teachers concerned in their colleges. Bombay 400 032 22nd December, 1989. Sd/- REGISTRAR
9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this circular shows that four queries were raised by the Principals of the affiliated colleges. Query No. 4 was (i) with respect to counting of teaching experience of part-time lecturers. This was for the purpose of placing the part-timers on the senior scale and then in the selection grade or in the reader's post. The circular clearly states that the Director of Education is to be informed on this subject that those part-time lecturers who have worked at two places will be considered as full time lecturers and where a person puts in two years as part-time lecturer, his service will be counted as one year full time service. This is for his assessment to place him in the higher grade which is Rs. 3,500/-, thereafter selection grade and the reader's post. Thus, the University circular was clear that the part-time lecturers who have put in two years as part-time lecturers were eligible for senior scale, selection grade and also reader's post.
10. The petitioner has relied upon a few unreported judgments in support. The first is that of Lentin, J. dated 23rd January 1985 in Writ Petition No. 335 of 1984 filed by Bombay University College Teachers Union and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. In that case Prof. Mogre was a part-time Professor in Business Law in Somaiya college until 30th June 1983 and from 1st July 1983 he joined the Doongersee college of Commerce as a part-time professor in Business Law. The case of the petitioner was that he should be treated as in continuous service and should be placed in the correct pay scale accordingly. It was submitted on behalf of the Government that the beneficial resolution applied only to full time teachers. The learned Single Judge referred to the definition of teacher appearing in Section 2(30) of the then applicable Bombay University Act, 1974 which reads as follows:
Section 2(30). 'Teacher means a full time professor, associate professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor, Master of Method or 2 Director of Physical Education, if any, in any conducted, constituent or affiliated colleges or recognised institution in the University and includes any other persons imparting instructions or guiding research, whether serving full time or part-time or in an honorary capacity, who are designated to be teachers by the Statutes made on the recommendation of the Academic Council.' The learned Judge quoted Section 3 of the Statute framed under the Bombay University Act, 1974 which reads as follows:The term 'teacher' within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the Bombay University Act shall in addition to full time professor, Associate, Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor, Master of Method or Director of Physical Education, if any, in any conducted, constituent or affiliated colleges of Recognised institution in the University, include, inter-alia, part time professor provided he imparts instruction for at least 4 hours a week.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, gave the benefit of Government circular dated 17th September 1982 to the petitioner and he was held entitled to the necessary increments.
11. The next judgment relied upon was also of a learned Single Judge (Mrs.Manohar, J. as she then was in this Court) dated 21st June 1988 in Writ Petition No. 1073 of 1986 in the case of Prof. C.S. Bhave v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. The petitioner was a part-time lecturer in Marathi in the junior college of N.M. College of Commerce. The petitioner subsequently worked as a part-time lecturer of Marathi in junior college run by Bhavan's Hazarimal Somani College. The grievance of the petitioner was that Narsee Manjee college was not paying him the correct pay which should have been half the pay of a full-time lecturer. Reliance was placed on the above-referred University circular dated 31st March 1970. On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that in 1975, the 10+2+3 pattern was introduced and for some time there was no teaching work available to the petitioner and he had become surplus. He was transferred from the Degree college to the Junior college. Later-on the college decided to continue his services only on clock hours basis. A reference was made to the State legislature as well. The Government ultimately came out with the Resolution dated 27th April 1981 which referred to the earlier circulars and laid down that those teachers who were in service and in clear vacancies on 7th February 1975 will be held eligible for protection in the matter of their status as well as eligibility to the revised UCG recommended pay scales of college lecturers viz. Rs. 700-1600.
12. The Government opposed this petition by contending that he was a part-time lecturer. The learned Single Judge noted the definition of teacher quoted above under the Bombay University Act and also referred to the judgment of Lentin, J. (supra) and held that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of his pay scales and allowances as a confirmed part-time lecturer and issued necessary directions to the Narsee Manjee college.
13. The third judgment relied upon is also of Mrs. Manohar, J. dated 20th July 1988 in Writ Petition No. 1629 of 1985 in the case of Ramkrishna Purshottam Dalal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. This petitioner worked as a part-time lecturer of Hindi in R.A. Podar college of commerce and in Ruia college belonging to the same management. Later-on from June 1971 he worked as a part-time lecturer in Podar college and part-time lecturer in Somani college until 1978. These two colleges belong to different managements. The petitioner relied upon the University circular of 31st March 1970. The petitioner claimed the benefit of Government Resolution of 27th April 1981 since he was working earlier as a part-time lecturer as on 7th February 1979. On behalf of the Government what was specifically contended is recorded in para-10 as follows:
It was also contended that as the petitioner was a part time teacher in two different colleges the benefit of the resolution cannot be extended to him. This contention again must also be rejected.
The learned Judge referred to her own judgment in Prof. Bhave's case (supra) and extended the benefit to the petitioner.
14. The fourth judgment relied upon by the petitioner is that of S.H. Kapadia, J. (as he then was in this Court) dated 10th August 1994 in the case of Gajanan K. Raote v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The petitioner was seeking the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity under the relevant Government circulars. He first worked in the Kirti college as full time lecturer in March 21.3.1974 until 15th June 1974. During 1974-75 he worked as a part-time lecturer in two colleges i.e. Parle college and Burhani college. He contended that as per the Circular dated 31st March 1970 he was entitled to receive the total emoluments of a full-time teacher in any one of the colleges. In 1975 this 10+2+3 pattern was introduced. The petitioner was terminated at the end of academic year 1979-80 on the ground that he had become surplus in Burhani college where he was then working. He claimed the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 27th April 1981. He also challenged his termination by filing an appeal to the College Tribunal. The College Tribunal held that he should be deemed to have been confirmed after two years of service.
15. The question before the learned Single Judge was whether the petitioner was to be treated as a confirmed teacher from 20th July 1974 and whether he was entitled to the pension-cum-gratuity scheme. The Government contended that at the relevant time he was working as a part-time lecturer in two different colleges. The University submitted that it had nothing to say on the question of pension-cum-gratuity. However, since he had worked as a part-time lecturer in two different colleges he was entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances as a lecturer. The learned Single Judge observed that the issue as to whether a part-time lecturer working in two different colleges was entitled to the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity was no more res integra in view of the decision in the case of Prof.Bhave v. State of Maharashtra (supra) (Per Mrs.Manohar, J.). The learned Judge, therefore, held that even on the footing that the petitioner had worked in two different colleges as part-time lecturer he was entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution.
16. It was submitted before the learned Judge that the Government Resolution dated 21st July 1983 dealt with the question of application of pension and gratuity to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the non-agricultural Universities and the affiliated non-Government colleges. Clause 2(b) thereof mentioned the employees covered thereunder. Clause 2(c) laid down that the employees who were completed more than two years of continuous service in a clear vacancy were to be treated as holding a permanent post. Clause 2(d) laid down that if there was a break of more than six months, the prior service will not be considered unless the break was condoned. The learned Judge held that he was concerned with the question of eligibility and not computation and held that the petitioner was entitled to receive pension-cum-gratuity.
17. As far as the respondents are concerned, no complete reply was coming forward though the matter was adjourned from time to time and though the matter was pending for last over 15 years. The petitioner's Advocate made one more affidavit on 4th August 2005 and pointed out that in the meanwhile there has been a further pay revision under the 5th Pay Commission which has been implemented in the year 2000-2001. The petitioner, therefore, claimed the pay scale in the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300 from 1st June 1996. It was however pointed out that as far as the Narsee Manjee college is concerned, all throughout the petitioner worked in the grade of Rs. 350-800 from 1990 to 2002. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had lodged the complaint to the Grievances Committee under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 which had come into application in the meanwhile. The Registrar of the University has written to the Principal of the Narsee Manjee college on 14th August 1998 pointing out that the Committee had heard both the parties i.e. the Principal and the complainant and that the Committee had recommended to the Management Council that the Principal be informed that he should pursue the matter with the Joint Director of Higher Education and arrange to pay the salary with arrears. The petitioner also placed on record the letter of the college dated 19th August 1998 addressed to the Joint Director which forwarded University's letter dated 14th August 1998 to him. It further stated that the college had submitted the pay fixation forms with several reminders but no steps were being taken by the Joint Director. The Division Bench, therefore, passed an order on 5th August 2005 permitting the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the Joint Director and the Joint Director was asked to take a decision thereon at the earliest and in any case within two months and the same was to be placed before the Court on an affidavit. The report was not filed and hence another order was passed by another Division Bench on 9th December 2005. Finally, the affidavit enclosing the report was filed on 17th January 2006 which opposes the prayers made in the petition. In para-6 of the reply it is contended that the University circular dated 31st March 1970 is an administrative direction. It is only Statute 449(4) which will apply. According to the Joint Director, that statute gives a protection only to the part-time teachers working in two colleges of the same institution. Since the petitioner did not belong to this category, he would not be entitled to the same.
18. As far as the demand for the proper pay scale is concerned, it was stated in para-7 of this reply that as per the Government Resolution dated 15th February 1979 the pay scale of the part-time lecturers was revised from 1st January 1973 i.e. Rs. 350-800 which was exactly half of the then UCG scale for the full-time lecturers plus Dearness Allowances. In para-8 it was accepted that the pay scale of the teachers was revised from 1st January 1986 vide Government Resolution dated 27th February 1989 i.e. Rs. 3700-5700. He, however, stated that as far as the part-time lecturers are concerned, their pay revision would be governed by the Government Resolution dated 17th August 1991 which revised their pay scale to Rs. 11200 with effect from 1st January 1986. He also pointed out Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 thereof which read as follows:
4.2) The part-time teachers will be eligible for annual increment but they will not be entitled for placement in senior scale and selection grade which is admissible only to full time Lecturers. Similarly, the condition relating to participation in two Refresher Courses/Summer Institutes or in other appropriate continuing educational programmes will not be applicable to part-time teachers.
4.3) The part-time teachers will not be entitled to C.L.A./H.R.A. and Bonus.
It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the senior scale of Rs. 3000-5000 or the promotion scale of Rs. 3700-5700 as per G.R. dated 27.2.1989.
19. He further pointed out that the pay scale of the part-time lecturers was revised to Rs. 4000-6500 with effect from 1st January 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to that pay scale from 1st January 1996. He pointed out that Clause 4.3 of this Resolution also clarified that part-time lecturers were not entitled to C.L.A., H.R.A., transport allowance and bonus etc. It was stated that the petitioner was not entitled to pension, gratuity and all the retirement benefits since he was a part-time lecturer. This was clearly in view of the Government Resolutions dated 24th July 1983 and 15th May 1996. The grievance was also made about the petitioner not disclosing his working on full-time basis with Narsee Manjee college on two different occasions and it was without prior permission.
20. It was, therefore, submitted (i) that the petitioner's claim of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits ought to be rejected, (ii) the petitioner was not entitled to D.A., C.L.A. and H.R.A. This was not provided in the University statute also. (iii) His claim for the salary and allowances as per the scales available to the full-time lecturers cannot be granted. (iv) He would only be entitled to his claim as per the Government Resolution dated 11th December 1999. That will be considered when the respective colleges separately recommend his name to the Selection Committee for Career Advancement in the eligible grades as per the norms fixed by the UCG for the part-time lecturers. However, it was not possible to combine these two separate services. The respondents also relied upon an order of a Division Bench in the case of R.P. Dalal v. Ruia College in Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2002 where the petition was rejected at the admission stage itself. In that case, the petitioner had made two grievances viz. (i) his service during 1.9.1969 to 31.7.1978 was wrongly not treated as qualifying service and (ii) his pension had not been computed under the revised scale as per the 5th Pay Commission. In that matter the Government Pleader had accepted that the petitioner's pension had to be computed under the revised scale as per the 5th Pay Commission from 1.1.1996. But as far as the claim for the part-time employment during 1969-78 is concerned, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner had relied upon the University Circular dated 31.3.1970 which mentioned the total emoluments on the basis of two part-time services. The Division Bench referred to the Government Resolution of 21st July 1983 and thereafter observed as under:
The relevant Government Resolution No. NGC-1283/(865)/UNI-4 is dated 21.07.1983 whereby a Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme has been extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the non-Agricultural Universities and the affiliated non-Government Colleges. The pre-requisite qualification for eligibility of pension and gratuity is that the employee must be a full time employee. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was not full time employee for the period from 1.9.1969 to 31.7.1978 and, therefore, the said period could not have been treated as qualifying service.
21. From what we have noted above, it is seen that four judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges took the view that part-timers working in two colleges of two different managements were entitled to receive salary equivalent to a full time lecturer as also all retirement benefits. As against that, a Division Bench has declined to give the same benefits in the order rejecting Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2002 at the admission stage. The order passed by the Division Bench is a short order which refers to the Government Resolution dated 21.7.1983 and having looked into it, has declined to give the benefits as sought by a part-time lecturer working in two colleges. It has however so transpired that the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges in four matters referred to above taking a contrary view do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. We are told that now the appointments of part-timers are no longer made as far as possible and probably different considerations will govern their service conditions. However, as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has worked much earlier as a part-timer in two different colleges and is claiming the benefits for his services rendered in the N.M. college from 16.7.1977 onwards. In his case, the question will arise as to whether he will be governed by the rules that operated at that time and whether he should get the benefits of the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges interpreting the rules as they stood at that time.
22. However, judicial discipline requires us not to disregard the order of another Division Bench, though passed at an admission stage. At the same time, we are of the opinion that in view of the factors which are noted above, it is perhaps possible to take a view different from the one which the Division Bench has taken in Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2002. However, as we are sitting in Division Bench, it is not possible for us to take that view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench which may examine the issue and decide this petition after considering the views rendered by the learned Single Judges in four judgments referred to above at the final hearing and the view taken by the Division Bench in a subsequent matter at the admission stage.
23. The petition be, therefore, placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring it to a larger Bench.