http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: PROF. C.D TASE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1989

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  829            1989 SCR  (1) 736  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 273 JT 1989 (1)   364  1989 SCALE  (1)432

ACT:     Labour and Services: Lecturers--Pay  scales--Implementa- tion of Third Pay Commission’s  recommendations--Entitlement to  placement in the pay scale on the basis  of  recommenda- tions   of   the  earlier  report  that  was   accepted   by Government--Valid  and  protected--Fixation in  the  revised scale giving effect to the Third Pay Commission’s  recommen- dations   to  take  into  account  such   placement   before fixation-Benefit of such placement cannot be denied.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant joined as a Lecturer in 1971, in a College affiliated  to  Pune University in the scale  of  Rs.300-600 prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Earlier,  in 1967 the State Government accepted in principle the  Govern- ment of India Scheme based on recommendations of the Univer- sity Grants Commission for improvement of pay-scales of  all university  and college teachers, and issued  directions  to all  universities  in the State. The  Universities  in  turn directed  all the affiliated colleges accordingly.  The  new scales   were  Rs.300-25-600  (Lecturers,   Junior   Scale), Rs.400-30-640-40-800    (Lecturers,   Senior   Scale)    and Rs.700-40-1100  (Senior Lecturers) and were to  take  effect from 1.4.1966. The number of Senior Lecturers and  Lecturers (Sr.  Scale) was not to exceed 1/4 of the total strength  of Lecturers.     Again,  in  1978, it was decided to implement  the  next report,  viz,  the  Third Pay  Commissioner’s  report  which prescribed  a running scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect  from 1.1.1973. All the Universities in the State were directed to implement  the  same. A question was raised  as  to  whether placement of teachers already made after 1.1.1973 in the pre 1973  scales  would be valid on the  implementation  of  the revised  scale  with effect from  1.1.1973.  The  Government clarified that such a placement would be valid and  protect- ed, subject to the prescribed conditions. However, the  Pune University  directed the College Managements to  ignore  the pay-scales prescribed by the earlier Pay Commission in  case of  teachers who became entitled to the higher  scale  after 1.1.73.  Against  this,  the appellant and  two  others  ap-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

proached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition.  However, the High Court felt that there was 737 nothing  very  inequitable about the decision taken  by  the University authorities and declined to interfere.     This  appeal,  by  special leave, is  against  the  said judgment of the High Court.     Before  the  Court, the appellant argued that  the  High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the decision of the University authorities was highly prejudicial to the  appel- lant and others who were similarly situated, as it  resulted in substantial monetary loss. Allowing the appeal,     HELD: 1. The decision of the university not only appears to  be ’inequitable’ but also discriminatory inasmuch as  it sought  to treat equals as unequals by protecting those  who had  secured  the placement and denying the same  to  others whose names the college managements had failed to forward in good  time. The appellant was entitled to placement  in  the higher scale of Rs.700-1100 before being brought over to the revised scale of Rs.700-1600. [742B]     2. The Lecturers whose names were recommended for place- ment  in the higher scale before October 4, 1975 were  enti- tled  to  such placement before being brought  over  to  the revised scale of Rs.700-1600. The appellant was entitled  to placement in the higher scale of Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. June 15, 1975.  The college authorities failed, for no fault  of  the appellant and his companions, to forward their names to  the University in the prescribed proforma for reasons best known to them. To deny the benefit to which the appellant and  his companions were entitled on account of the lapse on the part of  the college authorities would be highly unfair  and  un- just.  The High Court, however took the view that there  was ’nothing very inequitable’ about the decision of the Univer- sity to deny such placement to the appellant and his compan- ions, but it is obvious that if they had been granted place- ment  on  the  due dates they would have  been  entitled  to higher  salary and allowances related to basic  salary  e.g. dearness  allowance which is a certain percentage  of  basic salary, would have gone up. [741F-H; 742A]     3. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit  of placement  in the higher scale of Rs.700-1100 to the  appel- lant from the date he became entitled to the same i.e.  June 15,  1975  and  thereafter  fix his  pay  revised  scale  of Rs.700-1600. The appellant will be entitled to the  monetary benefit accruing to him on the implementation of the above  738 directive which should be worked out and paid to him  within three months. [742C-D]     [The Court expressed the hope that the authorities  will extend  the same benefit also to the two companions  of  the appellant  notwithstanding  their failure to  approach  this Court, perhaps on account of cost constraint, and not  drive them to another round of litigation.] [742F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  785  of 1988.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated 6.3.  1987  of  the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1981. Appellant in person. Dr. Y.S. Chitale and V.B. Joshi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

   AHMADI,  J.  This is an appeal by  Special  Leave  under Article  136 of the Constitution of India from the  Judgment of Bombay High Court dated 6th March, 1987 in Writ  Petition No. 1166 of 1981.     The  appellant,  C.D. Tase, joined the  college  run  by Vidhya Prasarak Mandal, Thane, on June 15, 1971 as a lectur- er in the pay scale of Rs.300-25-600 prescribed by the  Uni- versity  Grants Commission pursuant to  the  recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission. By Government  Resolution No.  USG  1167-U dated November 6, 1967, the  Government  of Maharashtra  had  accepted in principle  the  Government  of India scheme based on the recommendations of the  University Grants  Commission for improvement of salary scales of  uni- versity  teachers and teachers in affiliated Arts,  Science, Commerce  and Secondary Training Colleges. Accordingly,  the Government  of Maharashtra directed all the Universities  in the  State  to implement the pay-scales recommended  by  the Commission. The scales recommended were to take effect  from April 1, 1966. Three scales were recommended for  lecturers, namely, Rs.300-25-600 (Lecturers, Junior Scale),  Rs.400-30- 640-40-800  (Lecturers,  Senior  Scale)  and  Rs.700-40-1100 (Senior  Lecturers). The Universities in turn directed  col- leges  affiliated to them to implement  the  recommendations accepted  by the State of Maharashtra. The appellant’s  col- lege  was at the material time affiliated to the  University of  Pune. The Additional Director of Education,  Maharashtra State by his letter No. S-95/127-A  739 dated  January 18, 1968 addressed to the Principals of  non- Government Arts, Science, Commerce and S.T. Colleges in  the State directed the colleges to implement the recommendations made  by the Second Pay Commission as approved by the  State of  Maharashtra.  The University in turn by its  letter  No. PU/Stat/F.3/A/67-68/236 dated February 7, 1968 directed  the Principals  of all colleges to implement the new pay  scales with  effect  from April 1, 1966. Thus, in the  category  of lecturers  (excluding  Principals) three  scales  as  stated above  were  prescribed subject to the  condition  that  the number of senior lecturers and lecturers, senior scale,  was not  to exceed 1/4th of the total strength of lecturers.  It was  left to the Universities to formulate norms  which  the lecturers must satisfy for being considered for the posts of senior lecturers and/or lecturers, senior scale, as the case may be. The High Court while disposing of the writ  petition filed by the appellant and his two companions, Writ Petition No. 1166 of 1981, observed:               "There does not appear to be much dispute that               if the report of the Second Pay Commission  of               University  Grants Commission was  implemented               in  letter and spirit, the  petitioners  would               have  respectively qualified for the  category               of  Senior  Lecturers  in  the  pay-scale   of               Rs.700-40-1100 on 2nd March, 1974, 15th  June,               1974 and 15th June, 1975 respectively." It  is evident from the above observation of the High  Court that  the appellant was entitled to placement in the  senior scale of Rs.700-401100 with effect from June 15, 1975.     In the meantime, sometime in 1978, a decision was  taken to  implement the Third Pay Commission Report prescribing  a running  scale of Rs.700-1600 for teachers with effect  from January  1,  1973. All the Universities in  the  State  were directed  to  implement the new scale  of  Rs.700-1600  pre- scribed  for  senior  lecturers. This  raised  the  question whether placement of teachers already made after January  1, 1973  in  the higher pre-1973 scales would be valid  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

implementation of the revised scale w.e.f. January 1,  1973. By  Government  Resolution No. USG  1178/24585/XXXII  (Cell) dated  June  27, 1978, it was clarified  that  placement  of teachers  made in one of the higher pre-1973 scales of  400- 800  and  Rs.700-1100 on or after January 1, 1973  would  be considered  valid  and protected subject to  the  prescribed conditions.  The  High Court points out that  if  the  above clarification is accepted as correct the appellant would  be entitled  to  placement in the high  scale  of  Rs.700-1100. However, relying on the University of Pune’s subse-  740 quent  letter of March 10, 1978 whereby the college  manage- ments  were  directed to ignore  the  pay-scales  prescribed pursuant to the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission in  the case of teachers who became entitled to  the  higher scale  after  January 1, 1973, it was submitted  before  the High  Court that since the new pay-scale of  Rs.7001600  was made operative from January 1, 1973, lecturers who were  not given  the  benefit of the revised scale  of  Rs.700-40-1100 could  be fixed in the new scale of Rs.700-1600 with  effect from January 1, 1973 as per the Circular No. Aff/Recg/193 of 1977  dated May 19, 1977. This submission made on behalf  of the  University  authorities found favour with  the  learned Judges  of  the High Court as they thought  that  there  was ’nothing  very inequitable’ about the decision taken by  the university authorities.     The  appellant who argued the case in  person  submitted that  the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that  the decision  of the university authorities was highly  prejudi- cial  to the appellant and others similarly situated, as  it resulted  in substantial monetary loss. It must be  realised that  the. decision to implement the recommendation  of  the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 was taken  some- time in 1978. In the meantime, several lecturers of  affili- ated  colleges  were placed in the higher scale  of  Rs.700- 1100. That is why, it became necessary to seek a  clarifica- tion  from the Government whether the placement  allowed  to such lecturers in the higher scale would be treated as valid having  regard  to the implementation of the  new  scale  of Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. January 1, 1973. As pointed out  earlier, the  Government by their Resolution of June 27, 1978  clari- fied that such placement in the higher scale of  Rs.700-1100 was valid subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed condi- tions.  The placement of such lecturers in the higher  scale of Rs.700-1100 was therefore directed to be protected  while bringing  them on the revised scale of Rs.700-1600. It  fol- lows  that  if the appellant had been placed in  the  higher scale  of Rs.700-1100 when he became entitled to it on  June 15, 1975 his pay would have been protected as per the clari- fication while being placed in the revised scale of  Rs.700- 1600.  The  appellant is, therefore, justified in  making  a grievance  that merely because the college/  university  au- thorities  did  not  place  him  in  the  higher  scale   of Rs.7001100 w.e.f. June 15, 1975 he cannot be made to  suffer on  the ground that he will get the benefit of  two  reports simultaneously  if  he  is  first placed  on  the  scale  of Rs.700-1100 and, thereafter brought on the scale of  Rs.700- 1600.  It  is evident from the  letter  No.  BY/Genl/1981-82 dated  January 28, 1982 addressed to all the  Principals  of Arts,  Science and Commerce Colleges by  the  Administrative Officer of Higher Edu-  741 cation  Grants, Bombay Region, Bombay that the  college  au- thorities  were directed to furnish information in the  pre- scribed form in respect of teachers who were entitled to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

benefit  of  the  pre-revised  scales  of  Rs.700-1100   and Rs.400-800.  The  Principal  of the  college  forwarded  the information  to the Administrative Officer under his  letter ACC/  TNE/2080  dated March 13/15, 1982  in  the  prescribed proforma which includes the name of the appellant as one  of the persons entitled to the same benefit. We may incidental- ly  mention  that his two companions in the High  Court  Dr. M.P. Kendurkar and Professor N. Krishnan were also  included in  the  list of eligible lecturers entitled to  the  higher scale  of  Rs.700-1100. The subsequent Resolution  No.  USG- 1178/  160692(19)  UNI/4 dated April 7, 1983 issued  by  the State of Maharashtra also stipulates as under:               "The  question of placement of these  teachers               was, therefore, under consideration of Govern-               ment  for  sometime past.  Government  is  now               pleased  to direct that the placement of  only               those  teachers whose names  were  recommended               for placement in the senior lecturers scale of               I.S.S.  viz.--Rs.  1100  and  400-800  to  the               universities  by the respective colleges  man-               agements  prior to 4th October, 1975 i.e.  the               date of issue of Government Resolution assign-               ing   revised  University  Grants   Commission               recommended scales but their placement was not               effected  due  to some reason  or  the  other,               should be made with effect from the dates  the               placement is approved by the concerned Univer-               sities."     It  is  evident from the above decision  that  lecturers whose  name  were recommended for placement  in  the  higher scale before October 4, 1975 were entitled to such placement before  being brought over to the revised scale of Rs.  700- 1600. The appellant was entitled to placement in the  higher scale  of  Rs.700-1600  w.e.f. June 15,  1975.  The  college authorities  failed, for no fault of the appellant  and  his companions, to forward their names to the University in  the prescribed proforma for reasons best known to them. To  deny the  benefit to which the appellant and his companions  were entitled on account of the lapse on the part of the  college authorities  would  be highly unfair and  unjust.  The  High Court,  however took the view that there was  ’nothing  very inequitable’  about the decision of the University  to  deny such  placement to the appellant and his companions, but  it is  obvious that if they had been granted placement  on  the due dates they would have been entitled to higher salary and allowances  related to basic salary e.g. dearness  allowance which is a certain percentage of basic  742 salary,  would  have gone up. In addition  they  would  have earned  increments by the time they became entitled  to  the revised scale of Rs.7001600. It is, therefore, obvious  that the decision of the university not only appears to be  ’ine- quitable  but also discriminatory inasmuch as it  sought  to treat equals as unequals by protecting those who had secured the placement and denying the same to others whose names the college  managements had failed to forward in good time.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant was  enti- tled to placement in the higher scale of Rs.700-1100  before being brought over to the revised scale of Rs.700-1600.     For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated March 6, 1987. We direct the respondents to grant the benefit of placement  in the  higher scale of Rs.700-1100 to the appellant  from  the date  he became entitled to the same i.e. June 15, 1975  and thereafter fix his pay in the revised scale of  Rs.700-1600.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

The  appellant  will  be entitled to  the  monetary  benefit accruing to him on the implementation of the above directive which  should  be worked out and paid to  him  within  three months  from today. The appellant will also be  entitled  to cost  from  the University of Bombay which  we  quantify  at Rs.2500.     Before  we part, we may mention that the two  companions of the appellant who were writ petitioners in the High Court have  not  approached this Court under Article  136  of  the Constitution  but we find that they were similarly  situated and  were  entitled  to placement in  the  higher  scale  of Rs.700-1600  w.e.L March 2, 1974 and June 15, 1975. We  hope that  the authorities will extend the same benefit  to  them also  notwithstanding their failure to approach this  Court, perhaps  on account of cost constraint. It would  be  highly unfair  to deny to them the monetary benefits to which  they are legally entitled. We do hope that the concerned authori- ties will not drive them to another round of litigation. G.N.                                            Appeal   al- lowed. 743