Holding

Graduate laboratory instructors, being teachers, are entitled to the pay scale of physical instructors and cannot be placed on the non‑teaching Group B pay scale.

Summary

The appellants, graduate laboratory assistants employed in non‑government colleges, performed teaching functions but were re‑designated as non‑teaching staff and paid the Group B pay scale of Rs 1390‑2970. They sought a writ directing that they be treated as teachers and receive the pay scale of physical instructors (Rs 2200‑4000). The State Government issued a circular on 26 December 1994 granting them the Group B scale, which the High Court initially quashed but the Appellate Bench upheld. The Supreme Court examined whether two separate grades of physical instructors existed and found no documentary evidence of such a distinction, noting that the annual report showed only one grade of physical instructor. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants, being teachers, cannot be placed on a non‑teaching pay scale and are entitled to the physical instructor scale. The Court set aside the High Court’s appellate order, restored the single judge’s order, and directed that the revised pay be effective from 1 August 1987.

Issues considered

The appropriate pay scale for graduate laboratory instructors in non‑government colleges who perform teaching duties.
Whether there exist two distinct grades of physical instructors with different pay scales.
Whether the State Government’s circular of 26 December 1994 granting Group B pay to the appellants is arbitrary or contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier order.

Subjects

pay scale fixationteaching stafflaboratory instructorsdiscriminationnon‑government collegesphysical instructorsgroup B employeesjudicial review

Judgment

ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
I

APRIL 20, 2001

[A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] B

Service Lmv:

Pay scale-Fixation of-Teachers of non-government colleges-Grant
of scale of pay to non-teaching staff-Tenability of Appellants Laboratory C
Assistants in non-government colleges-Subsequent re-designations as
Laboratory Instructors-Such Laborat01y Instructors being treated as members
of non-teaching staff-Claim for treatment as teaching staff and pay scale
equivalent to that of Physical Instructors-Supreme Court upholding the
claim by order dated 2617194-Pursuant to it, Circular dated 26112194
issued by State Government wherein appellants though shown as teachers of D
non-government colleges, were granted scale of pay applicable to Group B
employees belonging to non-teaching staff-Contention that there existed
two different grades· and scales of pay amongst Physical Instructors, one
being qualified Physical Instructor and other being_ unqualified Physical
instructor-Appel/ants being equated with under qualified Physical E
Instructors-Legality of-Held, there is no documentary support as regards
the existence of a separate grade of unqualified Physical Instructors-
Appe//ants having been conferred status as a teacher, cannot possibly be
allowed a pay scale ofa non-teaching post-Circular dated 26112194 arbitrary
and contrary to the order of Supreme Court dated 26/7194-Appellants, held,
are entitled to scale of pay in accordance with their status as teacher F
equivalent to that of Physical Instructors.

Ap.11ellants were Sdence Graduates working as Laboratory Assistants
in non-government affiliated colleges. In addition to their nonilal duties, they
also assisted teachers, helped the students in practical classes and also
imparted instructions to them in practical classes. All Laboratory Assistants G
were treated as teaching staff until the issuance of Government Order wherein
Laboratory Assistants of non-government affiliated colleges were treated as
members of the non-teaching staff. Representations were made against the
said Government Order but in vain. Subsequently, the State Government re-
designated the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors. However, H
. 109
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A there was neither any conferment of status of teacher nor grant of any pay
scale consistent with the teaching status. On the other hand, Graduate
Laboratory Assistants working in Government Colleges were designated as
Demonstrators and were accepted as members of teaching staff.

Aggrieved, appellants moved the High Court for issuance of a writ to
B treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants as teaching staff and to give them
a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical Instructors. Single Judge of High
Court allowed the said petition lvhich was confirmed by a Division Bench in
appeal. The said Judgements were upheld by Supreme Court in ap1>eal by
order dated 26/7/94 with modification as to the payment of revised scale of
c pay.
In the meanwhile after the aforesaid order of the Single Judge of High
Court a Government.Order was is~'Ued declaring the Graduate Laboratory
Instructors as members of the teaching staff without granting any higher
scale of pay. Subsequently, puq>0rtedly in terms of the aforesaid order of the
D Supreme Court.dated 26/7/94 the State Government issued a circular dated
26/12/94 wherein the appellants who were shou:n as teachers of non-
government colleges were in fact granted the scale of l>ay applicable only to
Group B employees belonging to non-teaching staff v.iz. Rs. 1390-2970.

The Circular dated 26/12/94 was challenged before High Co'.lrt and
E Single Judge quashed the same. Aggrieved, the State Government 11referred
an appeal which was allowed by the A11pellate Bench of High Court holding
that the Government Order dated 26/12/94 could not be said to be arbitrary
or contrary to the decision of Supre~e Court dated 26/7/94. Hence the 11rescnt
appeals.
F On behalf of the a11pellants, it was contented that though they 11ossessed
similar qualifications, experience and were similarly circumstances, they
were discriminated as against the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of
government colleges; that the High Court fell into a great error in accepting
the contention of having two classes of Physical Instruc~ors without any
G factual or documentary support.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that there were two definite
classes of Physical Instructors, one having Post-Graduate Diploma or
Certificate or a Degree in Physical Education and the second being under-
qualified Physical Instructors; that the qualified Physical Instructors were
-H given pay scale in terms of the U.G.C. Pay Scale i.e. Rs. 2200-4000 which
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE 111
... was similar to the scales of pay of Lecturers. Whereas the under-qualified A
Physical Instructors were given a different lower scale of pay i.e. Rs. 1390-
2970; that the Graduate Laboratory Instructors in non-government colleges
were given the scale of Rs. 1390-2970, equivalent to those of under-qualified
Physical Instructors, taking into consideration their teaching status and
qualifications; that it was specifically stated on behalf of appellants that they B
were not asking for the pay scale of lecturer.

Allowing the appeals, the. Court

HELD: 1.1. The appellants being Graduate Laboratory Instructors,
question of further classifying them does not and cannot arise. There is no
basis for the statement that there existed two different grades and scales of C
pay amongst Physical Instructors, one being qualified Physical Instructor
and other being unqualified Physical Instructor. Significantly the annual
report as published by the Education Department of the State Government
unmistakably record the existence of one grade of Physical Instructor. This
itself negates the contentions raised by the State. As per the said Annual D
Report, Physical Instructors in non-Government Colleges are termed as
teachers with scale of pay Rs. 1390-2970 whereas physical Instructors were
also termed as teachers and scale of pay appears to be similar "as in
Government Colleges" i.e. Rs. 2200-4000. Secondly, revised pay scale of the
non-teaching posts (Group B pay scale) have been noted to be Rs. 1390-2970.
It thus leaves no manner of doubt that whereas the appellants were shown as E
teachers of non-government colleges, they were in fact granted the scale of
pay applicable only to Grou11 B em1>loyees belonging to non-teaching staff.
Question of decrying a pay scale which is othenvise available to another
teacher (in this case the Physical Instructor) does not and cannot arise.
Appellants are, thus, entitled to a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical
Instructors in accordance with their status as a teacher in consonance with F
the Order of Supreme Court dated 26/7/94. [120-C-D; 123-D-E]

1.i. J'he High Court fell into a great error in accepting the contention
.of having two .~lasses of Physical Instructors without any factual or
documentary support. Needless to say that in the event there was some G
documentary sup11ort viz-a-viz the stand of the respondent-State as regards
the existence of two definite Grades of Physical Instructors obviously the
Government Order dated 26/12/94 could not have been found fault with -
since the same would have been in consonance with the order of this court
date·d 26/7/94. But there being no factual support therefore, there is no
justification of making Group B salary available even after conferment of H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A teaching status. The conferment of status as a teacher runs counter to fixation .
of 11ay scale of Group B employees since all the other teachers of the \
Government and non-government colleges are placed in the category of
teachers. A teacher cannot possibly be allowed a pay scale of non-teaching
post. The same is contradictory in·terms. The circular dated 26/12/94 is
thus an arbitrary exercise of power and cannot by any stretch be suggested
B to be othenvise rational and indiscriminatory. (122-G-H; 123-A-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2906-07
of 2001.

C From the Judgment and Order dated 25.6.99 of the Calcutta High Court
in M.A. T. No. 1368 of 1998.

A.K. Ganguli, Rana Mukherjee and Sumita Mukherjee for the Appellants.
VR Reddy, Tara Chandra Sharma and Rajeev Sharma for the Respondents.

D The Ju~gment .of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, J. Leave granted.

The issue pertaining to fixation of pay scale, though irksome continues
to be placed before this Court from time to tiii.1e and this matter i~ no exception.
E Significantly, however, one ought to note at this stage only that the matter
in issue has already travelled to this Court once before but the issue still
persists - surpi:isirigly though but this has turned out to be the trend of
litigation in this. country.

The fact situation of the matter in issue involve the Physical Instructors
F and. Graduate Laboratory Instructors in the employment of different non-·
governmental colleges in the State of West Bengal: The principal issue for
adjudication ·presently however is whether the scale of pay given to the
petitioners is in ·accordance with the writ of Mandamus as issued by the
learned single Judge of the Calcutta IBgh Court and· as confirmed by the
G Appellate Bench of the High Co~rt and stands accepted by this Court in
terms of this Court's judg!11ent and order dated 26th July, 1994.

Before adverting to the issue as noticed above and the rival contentions
as raised therefor, a brief factual backdrop would be convenient at this stage.

H The appellants are Science Graduates of different universities in the
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.) 113

....... country and have been appointed as Laboratory Assistants in colleges and A
in addition to their normal duties, the appellants were supposed to assist the
I teachers and help the students in practical classes, impart instructions to the
students in practical classes and to perform demonstration work including
. preparation of the lesson units in the practical classes. According to _the
appellants these Laboratory Assistants were all along being treated as teaching B
staff and pay & allowances including the Government share of Dearness
Allowances were paid to them until the issuance of the Government Order
No.288 -Education (CS) dated 21st March, 1969 wherein Laboratory Assistants
of non-government affiliated colleges were treated as members of the non-
teaching staff. The effect of such re-designation had a direct impact as
regards the payment of Dearness Allowances and obviously the same being C
prejudicial to the interest of the appellants, representations followed against
the Government Order but, however, to no effect. Representations, were made
since the withdrawal of teaching status was otherwise discriminatory as the
Graduate Laboratory Assistants had to discharge teaching function as well,
apart from the normal conduct of the Laboratory work.
D
The factual score depict that subsequently in August, 1983 the State
Government redesignated the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors
- It is on this score that Mr. Ganguli, learned senior Counsel appearing in
support of the appeals very strongly criticised. This change of nomenclature
according lo him \vas otherwise meaningless as there was neither any E
conferment of status of teachers or the grant of any pay scale consistent with
the teaching status. The Government notification was attributed to be a
mischievous deception and a "hoax" - a rather strong criticism: the question
therefore arises whether there was any justification of such an attribute to the
Government notification dated 10th August, 1983: a short question
consequently, thus - what was the necessity for issuance of such an order F
- would the change of nomenclature assist in any way the Graduate Laboratory
Assistants? A bare perusal of. the notification does not however give any
reason whatsoever as to the necessity of its issuance - the notification on
the contrary makes it clear that tl~ere would be no enhancement. of pay as also
the status, as non-teaching staff would remain unchanged: It is only the word G
"Assistant" was replaced by the word "Instructors" - but does that confer
any material benefit to the persons concerned? The answer obviously cannot
but be in the negative. It is on this background and upon perusal of the
. .). notification, Mr. Ganguli's criticism seem~ to be rather apposite though couched
in a very strong language but by reason of the fact-situation of the matter
in issue - if we may say so, justifiably so. Incidentally, be it noted that H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001 J 3 S.C.R.

A Graduate Laboratory Assistants working in government colleges have been
given the status and designations of Demonstrators and have been accepted
as members of teaching staff. According to the appellants they possess
similar qualifications, experience etc. but even though being similarly
circumstanced, the Graduate Laboratory Assistant~ of sponsored and non-
B government private colleges of West Bengal stands discriminated against the
Graduate Laboratory Assistants of Government colleges in West Bengal. The
earlier writ petition which stands concluded by this Court's order dated 26th
July, 1994 contained detailed list of University Acts and Statutes wherein
"teachers" have been defined to "include the Instructors".

C Needless to place on record that by reason of the act of discrimination
and having failed to obtain any redress from the State respondents, these
appellants moved the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court for
issuance of a writ of Mandamus to treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants
as teaching staff as per the definition contained in different University Act
and also to give them a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical Instructors ..
D By a judgment and order dated 29th July, 1987 the learned single Judge issued
a writ of Mandamus upon a detailed judgment, the operative portion whereof
is set out hereinbelow:-

" ......... The Rule accordingly is '.'
made absolute and the State
Respondents are hereby commanded by the issuance of a writ in the
E nature of Mandamus to treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants who
have already been redesignated as "Laboratory Instructors" as teaching
staff and to pay them in accordance with the existing scale of pay
prescribed for the Physical Instructors with ~ffect from 10th Augus~
1983 with all arrears."
F The appeal taken therefrom by the State Government resulted in
confirmation of the order by the judgment of the Appellate Bench dated May
15, 1992. The State of West Bengal, however, being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court moved
a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this
G Court and this Court finally on 26th July, 1994 refused to interfere with the
order and disposed of the matter with a speaking order. Relevant extracts of
the same however, are set out herein below:~
" .......... the Diyision Bench of the High Court upheld the findings of
the learned Single Judge.

H We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We see no ground
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 115

to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the A
learned single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench of the High
Court. We are, however, of the view that the respondents-petitioners
be paid the revised scale of pay, as directed by the High Court, with
effect from August 1, 1987 instead of August 10, 1983. Mr. A.K.
Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has very fairly B
stated that his clients are not asking for the pay-scale of Lecturer.
According to him, the pay-scale of Physical Instructors is equivalent
to that of Demonstrators and that is the pay-scale to which his clients
are entitled to in terms of the judgment of the High Court.

The arrears shall be paid to the respondents in two installments, first C
by the end of February 1995 and the second installment by August
31, 1995. The appeal is dismissed with the above modifications. No
costs."

Significantly another class of Instructors also employed in non-
government colleges were called Physical Instructors and prior to 2nd July, D
1984 the Physical Instructors were of two categories in so far as the scale of
pay was concerned, to wit, (i) those who had their qualification as Post-
Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a Degree in Physical Education would be
entitled to pay scale of Rs. 550-900; (ii) those who did not possess the above
quali.ficatjons Rs. 425-700.
E
Subsequently, however, by reason of University Grants Commission's
recommendations the State Governnient by its Order No.888 dated 2nd July,
1984 prescribed in the teaching category only one scale of pay for Physical
Instructors and also with a direction that in future all appointments to Physical
Instructors would have to be made from those having the qualification of
Post-Graduate Diploma or Certificate or a Degree in Physical Education. The F
Government Order noticed above in this paragraph revised the existing scale
of pay to one composite scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600 for Physical Instructors
in the teaching category and a perusal of the said order does not leave any
manner of doubt as regards introduction of only one scale of pay for Physical
Instructors and with a teaching status. G
Incidentally, during the pendency of the earlier appeal before the High
Court the Government by an Order No.579 dated 2.5.88 directed affiliating
Universities to take necessary action for conferment of teaching status to the
Graduate Laboratory Instructors of non-government college and in fact by a
subsequent Government Order No.1039 dated 27th July, 1988 the Graduate H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Laboratory Instructors were declared as members of the teaching staff though,
however, without granting any higher scale of pay - obviously in accordance
with the writ of Mandamus issued by the High Court as noticed herein before.
Incidentally the pay scale of Physical Instructors hav-ing the teaching status
was revised by Government Order No.517 dated 30.4.1990 from Rs. 700-1600
B to Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from 1986.
I
It is at this juncture a further factual recapitulation may be conveni
to the effect that this Court vide its judgment dated 26th July, 1994 uph
the reasonings· and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge
affim1ed by the Division Bench but modified the relief regarding the date
C introduction of the revised scale of pay to wit: from 1st August, 1987 instea
of 10th August, 1983. It was never contended by the State (at least as appears
from the records produced before this Court) that the Physical Instructors,
holding teaching status, had more than one scale ofpay after 2nd July, 1984.
(Neither such a contention could be raised since there was only one scale of
pay for Physical Instructors having teaching status). This aspect of the matter
D however been very strongly denied by Mr. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State Government. Mr. Reddy contended that there are two
definite classes of Physical Instructors one having Post-graduate diploma or
. certificate or a degree in Physical Education. and the second being unae!-
qualified Physical Instructors having a pay-scale of Rs. 425-700 which stands
E recognised even in the Government Order No.589 dated 25th April, 1980. Mr.
Reddy contended that it has never been revoked by a subsequent Government
Order: whereas qualified Physical Instructors allowed the scale of pay of Rs.
700-1600 with effect from 1.4.1980, the under-qualified Physical Instructors'
pay-scale remained at Rs. 425-700 on the same date until it was revised in
January, 1986 when the under-qualified Physical Instructors were given pay- ·
F scale of Rs. 1390-2970 in terms ofROPA Rules, 1996. Mr. Reddy contended
that the qualified Physical Instructors, since 1.1.1996, in terms of the UGC pay
scale, has been given the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and contended rather
strongly the. existence of a different scale of pay for under-qualified Physical
Instructors - a sharp difference thus being created between under-qualified
G and qualified Physical Instructors -the latter being governed by the UGC scale
and the former in terms ofROPA, Rules of West Bengal. Mr. Reddy contended
that UGC pay scale has been offered to those Physical Instructors having the
qualification of Post~Graduate Diploma/Certificate or Degree in Physical
Education - Mr. Reddy emphasised further that existence of under- qualified
Physical Instructors with a different ·scale of pay is hidden in the recording
H ~ffected by this Court earlier and for convenience sake is recapitulated once
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 117

again herein below: The earlier order contained as below:- A
"A!fr. AK Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
very fairly stated that his clients are not asking for the pay-scale of
Lecture1: According to him, the pay scale of Physical Instructors is
equivalent that of Demonstrators i.e. pay scale to which his clients
are entitled to in terms of the judgment of the Hon. High Court." B
(Emphasis supplied)

It is on this score Mr. Reddy contended that the statement of the
learned senior· counsel appearing for the Laboratory Instructors made at the
time when the pay scale of the Physical IQstructor is equivalent to that of
Lecturer and pay scale of Demonstrator is not identical with Physical Instructor 'C
(qualified). Thus the observation cannot be followed in respect of graduate
Laboratory Instructors equating with either of the two categories. In the
implementation of the UGC pay scale of 1973 and onwards, it is mandatory
that the teaching post which were in existence prior to 1.1.1973 would only
come under the purview of UGC scale of pay and others under the State rules. D

Mr. Reddy contended that Physical Instructors who possess the
qualifications of Post-graduate diploma/certificate or degree in Physical
Education were given the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from
1.4.1980 to 31.12.1985. The said scale has been further revised to Rs. 2200-
4000 with effect from 1.1.1986 which is further revised by UGC to Rs. 8000- E·
13500 which were also the scales of pay of lecturers and it was specifically
stated on behalf of the employees through their senior counsel that they are
not asking for the pay scale of lecturer which is Rs. 2200- 4000 at the material
time. ;

It has been further stated that the observation made by the learned F
senior counsel on behalf of the Graduate Laboratory Instructors in this Court
is followed in toto by the State Government in allowing the scale of Rs. 1390-
2970 taking into consideration their teaching status and qualifications.

While the submissions of Mr. Reddy seems to be rather attractive at the G
first blush viz.-a-viz. the statement of Mr. Ganguli before this Court on the
earlier occasion. But the factum of existence of two separate clcisses of
Physical Instructors, one being a qualified and the other being a non- qualified
Physical Instructors shall have to be considered and notic~ with certain
amount of caution in view of the factual matrix of the matter in issue and the
records as is available even in this Court. Some record of proceedings may H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A be useful to be referred to at this juncture.

(i) The order of the learned single Judge dealing with the present writ
petition before the High Court recorded as follows:

"On 24.6.1997 Mr. Bihani prayed for time to file affidavit affirmed by
B Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, the Higher Education
Department in qualifying the said position regarding two pay scales
for Physical Instructors. Referring the said two pay-scales no
notification or order could be produced. On the contrary, only one
pay-scale has been mentioned in the report published by the Higher
Education Department''
c
(ii) Subsequently on 16th January, 1997 the learned Single Judge further
recorded the following:

" ................ under such circumstances, it is not clear on what basis the
•.
said affidavit has been affirmed by the said Kalyan Kumar Mandal,
D Assistant Director of Public Instruction that there is another category ·
of Physical Instructor with B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. qualification in the scale
. of pay Rs. 1390-2970.

Accordingly, the said Kalyan Kumar Mandal, As~istant Director.
of Public Instruction is directed to be personally present before the
E
Court on 22 .1.1997 with all records and explain on what basis he has
filed such affidavit affirmed on 31.8. 95 mentioning two categories of
I
Physical Instructor. Learned Advocate for the State respondent is also
directed to produce all records on the next date of hearing."

F Be ~t noted that State of West Bengal sought time to produce relevant
government records on more occasions than one as directed but no such
documents were produced even by reason wherefor the learned Single Judge
while disposing of the Writ Petition on 27th March, 1998 was pleased to
observe in no uncertain terms about the non-production of documentary
G evidence in support of the contentions as raised and emphasised pertaining
to the existence of qualified and under-qualified Physical Instructors. Similar
contentions were raised by the State GovernrnenJ before the Division Bench .
of the High Court but without however any documentary supj>ort and when
this Court heard the Special Leave Petitions after return of notic~s and by
reason of the specific contentions of the appellants herein negating the
H existence of two groups of Physical Instructors. The learned counsel for the
/
.........

A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 119

respondents wanted some time to obtain instructions and to file supplementary A
affidavit. This Court further granted 3 weeks' time from the date of the order
to file such an affidavit and the matter was directed to be listed after three
weeks (vide order dated April 10, 2000). '

(iii) The records depict that this Court by a further order dated 18th
August, 2000 offered a further opportunity and the order seems to be of some B
consequences, by reason therefor, the said order is set out in extenso as
below:-
"Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has taken us through the earlier judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 29.7.87 (page No.96) and of the Division Bench C
dated 15.5.1992 (page 99) and of this Court dated 26.7.94 (at page 112)
and also pointed out that by the Government Order dated 2.7.84 (page
345), Physical Instructors have been brought into a single scale of Rs.
700-1600 (which has since been revised as Rs. 2200-4000) and that the
petitioners are entitled to the said scale without any distinction between D
Graduates and Non- Graduates inasmuch as so far as Physical
Instructors, were concerned, the above order of 1984 removed any
such distinction.
..... On the other hand, Sri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents has referred us to an affidavit E
filed by the Government in_ the High Court and pointed out that even
for Physical Instructors, there was still distinction between these two
categories. It was however, pointed out to learned senior counsel that
this Statement in the counter affidavit, prima facie runs counter to the
earlier order of the Government dated 2. 7 .1984 whereby the distinction
between the Graduates Physical Instructors and Non-Graduate Physical F
Instructors had been removed. At this stage, Sri KK Venugopal says
that he would file all Rules/Circulars/Orders which relate to the pay
scale of Physical Instructors and clarify the position.
The State Government may file by way of an affidavit referring to
the Rules/Orders/Circulars. if they are still maintaining a difference in G
scales between Physical Instructors in regard to Graduate and Non-
Graduates."
The records of the Government Order however have not seen the light
of the day even before this Court instead of such specific directions: is it a
mere omission-unfortunately the conte:ll..tual facts depict it otherwise. H

I[)

'
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2901] 3 S.C.R.

A (iv) As late as February 28, 2001 this Court again directed as under:-

"Mr. V:R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
wants titne to "place before the Court the categorisation in .two classes
of the Physical Instructors referred at page 343 continued even
subsequeµtly including the revisional pay scale hence he wants to
B place in a tabular form the second category on which he wants to
place the present petitioners. While doing so he should also refer to
relevant ritles and G. Os. under which the same continue. He seeks
two weeks' time for the same. List these matters after two weeks as
part-heard when this Bench sits ~ext."

C On this ·score, a chart has been produced in Court on 20th March, 2001 ~
which however cannot by any stretch be said to be in support of the
contention of the State that there were existing two different grades and
scales of pay·~amongst Physical Instructors :one being to be. a qualified
Physical Instructor and other being unqualified Physical Instructor.

Significantly the annual report as published by the Educati.on Department
of the State Government unmistakably record the existence of one grade of
Physical Instructor under paragraph 8.16, The annual report details out teachers
of Government Colleges in the manner as belOw:
t'
,
.E "8.16 Teachers of Government Colleges

S.No. Category of tt;achers Pay scale
(Basic) w.e.f 1.1.1986.

5. Demonstrator Rs. 1740-3000
F 4. Physical Instructor Rs. 2200-4000 . ..,,

3. .. Lecturer ..... ~· 2200-4000

2. Professor/Vice Principal Rs. 3700-5700
(Grade-II)
•·
G 1. Principal Rs. 4500-7300"

Paragraph 8.21 also records the details of the Administration of Non-
Qovernment Colleges as below:
The teachers of the non-Government Colleges are of .the following
H categories (basic):-
+
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 121
1. Laboratory Instructor Rs. 1390-2970. A
;
2. Demonstrator
3. Physical Instructor as in Government Colleges

4. Lecturer

5. Principal B
This itself however negates the contentions as raised by the State..
I
Physicallnstructors in non-Government Colleges are termed as teachers with
4 scale of pay Rs. 1390-2970 whereas Physical Instructors were also termed as
teachers and scale of pay appears to be similar "as in Government Colleges"
~

i.e. Rs. 2200-4000. Secondly in paragraph 8.24 revised pay scale of the non- c
teaching posts (Group B pay scale) have been noted to be Rs. 1390-2970. It
thus leaves no manner of doubt that whereas the petitioners were shown as
teachers of non-government colleges they were in fact granted the scale of
pay applicable only to Group B employees belonging to non-teaching staff
and thus granted a non-teaching scale to· the petitioners .. D
It is on this score, however, Mr. Ganguli contended rather emphatically
that the High .Court· fell into a great error in accepting the contention of
... having two classes of Physical Instructors without any factual or documentary
support. The criticism of Mr. Ganguli seems to have some force since there
was in fact a total failure on the part of the respondents to produce any E
documentary support in tune with the submission as noticed above - Obviously
the records apparently runs counter to the submission and findings as recorded
by the High Court.

. The purport of the order of this Court is not very far to seek: tliere is
a definite apprQval of ~e reasoning and conclusion as reached by the learned F
~

., Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court and the,
alteration is only from 1983 to 1987. Reliance on Mr. Ganguli's statement as
' recorded in the earlier order of this Court that his clients are not asking for
pay scale of Lecturer and would be happy if the pay scale of Physical
Instructors are made available to them does not really alter the situation.
G
Admittedly, Lecturers are a rank higher than the Physical Instructors as the
Professor/Vice Principal is a rank higher than the Lecturer and the Principal
two ranks higher than the Lecturers.
)-

It is however in terms of the order of this Court as noticed herein before,
the State Government on 26th December, 1994 has issued a circular obviously H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A in proposed compliance with the order of this Court. Let us however examine
the circular and assess the situation ourselves as to the compliance of the ~

earlier order of this Court. The circular reads as below:-
'
"In the circumstances, the Governor is pleased to order that the scale "
of pay in respect of all graduate laboratory instructors of non-
B Government colleges maybe revised to Rs. 1300-45-1615-55-2056-66-
2445-2970/- with effect from 1st August, 1987 and the arrears involved
on account of revision of their scale of pay paid in the manner as
indicated above.
>-
The Governor is further pleased to order that the graduate
c laboratory instructors of Non- government colleges shall continue to -·
enjoy teaching status as given to them in GO No. I 030- Edn. CS dated
27.7.1988."

This circular however stands challenged before the learned single Judge

D
who was pleased to quash the same upon acceptance of the contentions of
the writ petitioners the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge categorically
r
recorded that the petitioners being Graduate Laboratory Instructors, question
of further classifying them does not and cannot arise and upon reliance of
the annual report as noticed above quashed and set aside the circular. The
•
State Government however being aggrieved went before the Appellate Court
and the Appellate Bench however aUowed the appeal and opined that the
E
Government Order dated 26th December, 1994 cannot be said to be arbitrary
or contrary to the decision of this Court. Since it is clearly stated therein that
Graduate Laboratory Instructors shall continue to enjoy the teaching status.
The High Court, however, has failed to appreciate the role of Physical
Instructors in the matter of fixation of pay scale in terms of the order of this
F Court and it is· on this count a definite statement has been made even before . "'
this Bench that there are existing two definite classes of Physical Instructors
one b~ing qualified and another being unqualified, but there is no factual ·~
support therefor. Surprisingly, the basis of the order of this Court has not
been delved in to by the High Court and the High Court thus clearly fell into
an error. Needless to say that in the event there was some documentary
G support viz.-a-viz. the stand of the respondent-State as regards the existence
of two definite Grades
. of Physkal- Instructors obviously the ' Government
Order issued in December, 1994 could not have been found fault with - since
the same would have been in consonance with the order of this Court. But -( )
there being no factual support therefor, we are not in a position to record our
H concurrence with the submissions of Mr. Reddy as regards. the justifiability
.__
~

t
I-
fl
+
A.R. SARKAR v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 123
'f
of making Group B salary available even after conferment of teaching status A
as upheld by the Appellate Bench of the High Court. The conferment of
status as a teacher runs counter to fixation of pay scale of Group B employees
since all the other teachers of the Government and non-government colleges
are placed in the category of teachers. A teacher cannot possibly be allowed
a pay scale of a non-teaching post: The same is contradiction in terms and
we need not dilate thereon. The criteria of fixation of pay scale is dependant B
upon the placement of the person concerned - in the event the placement is
in a teaching post obviously one expects to get a pay-scale fixed as a teacher
and not as a non-teaching member of the staff. Apparently the High Court
has not delved with the issue in this perspective and thus clearly fell into an
error in categorising a teacher with a non-teaching pay-scale. The circular C
clearly authorises the Graduate Laboratory Instructors of non-Government
colleges to continue to have the teaching status but decry the financial
benefits therefor! Would the same be not an arbitrary exercise of powers or
can it by any stretch be suggested to be otherwise rational and indiscriminat01y.
This Court at an earlier occasion unequivocally upheld the reasonings of the
learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition as accepted by the Appellate D
Bench and on the wake of such a finding of thi~ Court question of decrying
a pay scale which is otherwise available to another telit:her (in this case the
Physical Instructor) does not and cannot arise more so by reason of the
earlier order of this Court. Administrative ipsi dixit cannot infiltrate on to an
arena which stands covered by judicial orders. E
On the wake of the aforesaid these appeals succeed and are thus
allowed, the order of the AJ?pellate Bench of the High Court stands set aside
and quashed. The order of the learned Single Judge stands restored. The
entitlement by reason of the revision be made available from August 1, 1987
as directed by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 26th July, 1994. There F
shall be no order as to costs.

M.P. Appeals allowed.