Accompanist Welfare Association vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—The petitioners are working as Accompanist (Sangatkar) in Indira Gandhi Music University, Khairagarh. They have challenged the order dated 6th January, 2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the State Government has rejected their representation for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Accompanists are treated as Teachers under the set up of the University as mentioned in Annexure P-9 and the Singh Deo Committee has also recommended that the Assistant Teachers/Musicians/Sarangi/Accompanists should be paid pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and Rs. 1400-2640/-. He would also submit that vide Annexure P-26, the State Government has increased the age of superannuation of Accompanists from 60 to 65 years on the reasoning that the Accompanists are also imparting music teaching, therefore, their age of superannuation should be at par with Music Teachers. He would submit that for all these reasons, the State Government should have treated Music Teachers and Accompanists at par and should have granted them the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- which has been made admissible to the music teachers.

Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent University would submit that the representation has been dismissed by reasoned order, therefore, considering the scope of interference in the matters of pay scale, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, , the Supreme Court has held in para 31 thus:

The onus to establish the discrimination by the employer lies on the person claiming the parity of pay. The Expert Committee has to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales, etc., falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for administration i.e., service conditions, etc. is found to be bonafide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post may not be the sole determinative factor. The Courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.

In the case in hand, the set up of the respondent University clearly provides a separate entry for Accompanists with pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-, therefore, even if it is a part of teaching post, they have been treated differently than the regular Music Teachers and a separate pay scale has been provided to them. Merely because, for some other purpose i.e., for determining the age of superannuation, the petitioners have been treated as Teachers for increasing their age of superannuation from 60 to 65, it does not mean that for all other aspects i.e., for determination of pay scale, the State Government is bound to accept their prayer.

In fact, increasing the age of superannuation is in consonance with the set-up of the University wherein they have been clubbed along-with other teaching posts meaning thereby that they are part of the set-up earmarked for teachers, however, the duties of accompanists are different from that of regular teachers, therefore, a separate entry has been provided in the set up with a different pay scale.

While rejecting the representation, the State Government has mentioned that the job of an Accompanist is to accompany the musician whereas the Tabla Teacher is engaged for imparting education and as such, the Accompanists and Assistant Teacher (Tabla) are two different posts having different duties and responsibilities. It appears to this Court that the respondents have decided the representation by giving cogent reasons which cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. In any case, it does not offend the constitutional doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no substance in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed.