Maheshanand Kimni vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Anup Verma, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing counsel for the State. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:--

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 1.7.1990, the date since when the petitioner started to officiate as Lecturer and teaching Intermediate Classes as Lecturer in Civics Subject.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the benefit of past officiating service rendered by the petitioner in the Institution as Lecturer in Civics w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and pay arrears of salary to him w.e.f. 1-7-1990 till 28.4.1992.

III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

IV. Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that he does not wish to press relief No. I with regard to the seniority and is only confining his relief with regard to the payment of salary for the period 1st July, 1990 till 28.4.1992 as specified in relief No. II.

The facts of the case is, that the petitioner was initially appointed as an L.T. grade teacher on 1st January, 1980 in Janta Higher Secondary School, Kunajkhal, Distt. Pauri Garhwal which is an aided institution. On 3rd March, 1980, the State Govt. of U.P. upgraded the Janta Higher Secondary School to the level of Intermediate College, as a result of which, four posts of Lecturers and three posts of subordinate staff was created for running the intermediate classes. Pursuant to the upgradation, the District Inspector of Schools, Pauri Garhwal granted permission to the management to run the intermediate classes vide order dated 6th April, 1990. Based on this direction, the management directed the petitioner to teach the students of intermediate classes. In addition to his teaching assignment, the petitioner also started teaching civics subject to intermediate students for the period 1st July, 1990 till 28th April, 1992, i.e. approximately for the period one year and 10 months. It has come on record that the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Lecturer (Civics) on 28th April, 1992 and on 30th June, 2003, the petitioner became the Principal of the college. The petitioner has claimed the difference of arrears of salary for the period 1st July, 1990 till 28th April, 1992 on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Vs. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association and Others, , AIR 1993 1170 (SC) , Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and Surendra Nath Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Others, , wherein the Court issued direction for payment of salary for the post on which the petitioner was working till such time as he was relieved. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment cited, the Court is of the opinion that the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India is not applicable. The judgments cited are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the incumbent was working on a higher post exclusively but was being given the pay scale of a lower post and, on that basis, the Court found that the payment of lower post was discriminatory and the petitioner was entitled for the payment on the post on which he was working on the principle of equal pay for equal work. But in the present case, the facts are different. The petitioner, admittedly, was not a Lecturer and was only an L.T. grade teacher and, upon the upgradation of the school, for a limited period, the management requested the petitioner to also teach intermediate students in addition to the work which he was performing. The additional work given to the petitioner does not entitle him to claim pay of the post of Lecturer. Consequently, the principle of equal pay for equal work is not attracted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the relief No. II cannot be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.