Vikram Prasad and ors. Vs. Vice Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and ors. - Court Judgment

P. C. Pant, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by seven petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India for mandamus directing the respondents to pay the sanctioned scale of salary (Rs. 1640-2900) to the petitioners with effect from 22.7.1995.

2. Brief facts of the case are that G. B. Pant Agriculture & Technology University was created under the U. P. (Agriculture & Technology) University Act, 1958. The University runs various projects relating to agricultural research under the auspices of Indian Council of Research, New Delhi. In said projects various research assistants were engaged by the University and many of them including the petitioners were absorbed in the pay scale and designation of technical assistants in the University. It is alleged in the petition that the funding of the agriculture research was done by the Central Government through I.C.A.R. with the State Government at the ratio of 80:20% respectively. The sanctioned pay scale of the technical assistants, as per the petitioners, is Rs. 1,640-2.900 (revised Rs. 5,500-9,000). In the year 1995 when the petitioners were recommended by the Director of Research Centre for their absorption in the post of technical assistants and senior technical assistants, it was also recommended by him that the posts of technical assistants and senior technical assistants carry the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. It is alleged in the writ petition that the post of technical assistants and senior technical assistants are equivalent and of the same pay scale. The petitioners were absorbed in the year 1996 as technical assistants with effect from 22.7.1975. However, the respondents on absorption of the petitioners are making the payment of salary to them in the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 instead of Rs. 1,640-2,900. It is alleged in the writ petition that the distinction between technical assistants and senior technical assistants has been arbitrarily made by the University and only those designated as senior technical assistants are being provided the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900. The petitioners made several representations to the Board of Management for payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 to all the technical assistants but to no avail. It is also alleged in the writ petition that for both the posts of technical assistants and senior technical assistants the essential qualification is B.Sc (Ag.). It is lastly alleged that the nature of Job in both the posts is the same. Since the University has not accepted to the demand of petitioners for the salary of Rs. 1,640-2,900 (revised Rs. 5,500-9,000), hence the writ petition.

3. On behalf of the respondent-University counter-affidavit has been filed and the claim of the petitioners has been contested. A preliminary objection raised in the counter-affidavit regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that under Section 23 of U. P. (Agriculture and Technology) University Act, 1958 an appeal is maintainable before the Chancellor against the decision of Board of the University. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that the posts in All India Coordinate Research Projects are temporary posts depending upon the research work required to be done. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the designation and the pay scale of the posts in such projects are provided as per the norms of granting authority while the University enjoys liberty to make appointments against such posts as per the procedure laid down by it. It is admitted that in order to help the research associates for their absorption in the regular pay scales, a scheme was formulated. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Board of Management of the University approved the procedure for absorption and provided pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 for the posts of technical assistants and Rs. 1,640-2,900 for the posts of senior technical assistants. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that out of the seven petitioners two are working against the posts provided by the general budget while rests are in the All India Coordinate Research Project. The expenditure ratio met by I.C.A.R. and the State Government is alleged to be 75:25% and not 80:20% as stated in the petition. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioners are entitled only to the pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,600 and not the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 claimed by them.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The main question for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioners are wrongly denied the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 (unrevised).

6. Sri S. N. Babulkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is a letter dated 21.3.1994 issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi to all the Agricultural Universities including the respondent regarding the sanction of budget for the five year plan (1992-1997). At page 3 of the writ petition the pay scale of technical assistants has been shown Rs. 1,640-2,900. Further in the same sequence Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the letter dated 6.4.2000 from Government of India, Department of Agriculture Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi which pertains to the next five year plan (1997-2002) by which Rs. 2,687.767 lacs has been allocated as I.C.A.R. share for research programme. In this letter also at its 3rd page (paper No. 21 to the writ petition) for Pantnagar pay scale of technical assistants has been shown to be Rs. 1,640-2,900. As such, the claim of the petitioners cannot be said to be without substance. From the office order dated July 15, 1996 (copy Annexure-5) it appears that the respondent University, at its level, has bifurcated the post of technical assistants into senior technical assistants and technical assistants with different pay scales of Rs. 1,640-2,900 and Rs. 1,400-2,600 respectively. The reliance for this bifurcation has been placed on the decision of the Board of Management. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit which is copy of resolution No. 20 by which the Board of Management has bifurcated the pay scales. Now the question is whether either Board of Management or the University has any power to decide a pay scale at its level. On behalf of respondent no provision of law could be shown to me by which a pay scale can be fixed of an employee by the University without sanction of Government. A pay scale always requires approval from the Government as the burden in the public exchequer is involved in the matter. No such approval appears from the Finance Department either of the State or that of the Centre.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the petitioners at the time of absorption have accepted the pay scale assigned by the University to them, as such, the principle of estoppel applied and they cannot demand higher pay scale. 1 see no force in the contention for the reason that from the record it appears that right from the beginning petitioners are making representations for providing them the pay scales to which they are entitled.

8. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the principle of law laid down in Vice Chancellor, G.B. Pant University v. Dr. Kewala Nand, (1998) 3 UPLBEC 2029 and submitted that for the higher qualified persons higher pay scale can be fixed by making two separate cadres. The said principle of law is given in the circumstances where different qualifications are fixed for different cadres and the claim in said case was made on the basis of parity of other Universities where the different pay scales were applicable. That is not the case here.

9. Lastly learned counsel for the respondents also drew my attention to Section 23 of U. P. (Agricultural and Technology) Act, 1958 and argued that the petitioners should have gone in appeal before the Chancellor of the University and, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable, for alternative efficacious relief was available with the petitioners. This point would have been relevant in the year 2000 when the writ petition was entertained by the Court but now at the last leg of the litigation I do not think it just and proper to throw out the petition on the aforesaid ground.

10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners, being duly appointed technical assistants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 (unrevised) fixed by the Indian Council of Agriculture and Research. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed. No order as to costs.