DHARAM CHAND AND ORS. versus HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS

The appellants herein are the members of the ministerial staff working in the Haryana Agricultural University. It is not disputed that they came to be appointed after 6th June, I 980.

p. 480, margin G

On or about 2nd April, 1980, the Board of Management of the University A authorised the Finance committee to revise the pay scale of all the employees of the University with effect from I st April, 1979, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof recommendations were made to grant revised scale of pay to the employees of the University. The University accepted the said recommendations and issued a Notification as regards the revisions of pay scale of all categories of University employees, including clerks on 6th June, B 1980. The appellants admittedly herein were appointed on or about after 6th June, 1980 .

p. 481

. Having regard to the recommendations of the Finance Committee, the scale of pay of Class III employees of the University was made at par with C those of Class III employees of the State Government. The question which arose for consideration before the University was that in the event same scale of pay is made available in relation to the employees appointed both prior to and after 6th June, 1980, the pay scale of the Clerks, who were already in employment of th~ University, on that day, would go down. In that view of the matter, a representation was made by the said employees before the D University and the matter was referred to the Anomaly Removal Committee. Before the Anomaly Removal Committee, the contention of Class III employees of the University, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, was that their scale of pay was earlier fixed at Rs.120-300 whereas those of the State Government was Rs. 110 and 225. Upon consideration of the matters in E various meetings, the Anomaly Removal Committee had recommended as under:

p. 481

"(i) (a) since the pre-revised scale of pay of clerical cadre in the University was Rs. 120-300 against Rs.110-225 under State Government, the persons employed in the clerical cadre of the University, prior to p the date of notification of the revised scales i.e., prior to 6.6.80 should be allowed the scale of Rs.420-700 as a personal measure, but recruitment to the clerical cadre on or after that date (6.6.80) should be made in the normal scale of Rs.400-600. Selection grade of Rs.480- 760 shall be applicable to 20% of all permanent posts of clerical cadre whether in the scale ofRs.400-660 or·in the personal scale of Rs. 420- G

p. 481

700."

p. 481

The recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee was accepted by the Board of Management of the University. The appellants herein emboldened by the said fact filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying mandamus directing the respondent-University scale of pay granted to the other employees on equal work.

pp. 481–482

The learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the plea of the appellants herein and issued direction that the appellants would be given being paid to Class III employees appointed prior the respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal before Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment Judge. It is against the said judgment, the appellants by means of special leave petition. ,:•

p. 482, margin A

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants rules applicable to all the employees is the same, prepared and thus the cut off date fixed by the be arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel view the admitted fact that the appellants discharge functions as those who are appointed prior to held to have been discriminated against as the granted to them. Learned counsel appearing on the other hand would support the judgment under

p. 482, margin C

In the instant case, the question of applicability Pay for Equal Work does not arise. There is no herein, as also those who are appointed prior to 6th nature of duties and functions. However, in the of the University, as noticed hereinbefore, recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee scales of pay payable to the Clerks, who were 1980, was protected. By accepting the said recommendations, did not make any discrimination; keeping that in are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980 form a different were entitled to different treatment. Insofar as vogue immediately prior to 6th June, 1980 is concerned, to them merely with a view to protect their protection of scale of pay of employees, which confer any legal right upon the appellants herein in terms of the principles of equal pay for equal well known that the state is entitled to make a classification provided the same A is a reasonable one and based on intelligible differentia. As the employees, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, form a separate and distinct class. Such a classification was permissible, keeping in view the fact that they were in enjoyment of a higher scale of pay. The decision of the respondent- University to revise their scales of pay, in our considered opinion, cannot be B held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

pp. 482–483, margin E

For the aforesaid reasons, we do _not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. RP. Appeal dismissed.

p. 483