Holding

The university's denial was inequitable and discriminatory; the appellant is entitled to placement in the higher scale of Rs.700‑1100 from June 15, 1975 and thereafter in the revised scale of Rs.700‑1600, with appropriate back wages.

Summary

The appellant, a lecturer appointed in 1971, was entitled under the Second Pay Commission to a senior scale of Rs.700-1100 effective June 15, 1975. The State Government later adopted the Third Pay Commission's running scale of Rs.700-1600, and clarified that earlier placements in higher pre‑1973 scales would remain valid and protected. The University of Pune, however, directed affiliated colleges to ignore such placements for teachers whose names were not forwarded in time, effectively denying the appellant the higher pay. The High Court held there was "nothing very inequitable" in the university's action, but the Supreme Court found the decision discriminatory and contrary to the protection granted by the Government resolution. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appellant be placed in the higher scale from June 15, 1975, transferred to the revised scale, and awarded back wages and costs.

Issues considered

Whether the university's refusal to recognize the appellant's entitlement to the higher pay scale, due to non‑forwarding of his name, is inequitable and discriminatory.
Whether placements made under the Second Pay Commission are valid and protected when the Third Pay Commission's scale is later implemented.
Whether the appellant is entitled to back wages, dearness allowance, and other benefits arising from the protected placement.

Subjects

pay commissionlecturerssalary scaleplacementdiscriminationequal protectionuniversity administrationback wagesgovernment resolution

Judgment

I

PROF. C.D TASE
A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY & ORS.

FEBRUARY 16, 1989

B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI AND
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

Labour and Services: Lecturers-Pay scales-Implementation of
Third Pay Commission's recommendations-Entitlement to placement
in the pay scale on the basis of recommendations of the earlier report
C that was accepted by Government-Valid and protected-Fixation in
..Jhe revised scale giving effect to the Third Pay ·commission's recom-
mendations to take into account such placement before fixation- _
Benefit of such placement cannot be denied.

The appellant joined as a Lecturer in 1971, In a College 01f1iliated
D to Pone University in the scale of Rs.300-600 prescribed by the
University Grants Commission. Earlier, in 1967 the State Gov•ernment
accepted in principle the Government of India Scheme based on recom-
mendations of the University Grants Commission for improvement of
pay-scales of all university and college teachers, and Issued directions to -i"
all universities in the State. The Universities in tum directed all the
E affiliated colleges accordingly. The new scales were Rs.30~-25-600
(Lecturers, Junior Scale), Rs.400-30-640-40-800 (Lecturers, Senior
Scale) and Rs. 700-40-UOO (Senior Lecturers) and were to take effect
from l.4.1966. The number of Senior Lecturers and Lecture1rs (Sr.
Scale) was not to exceed 1/4 of the total strength of Lecturers.

F Again, in 1978, it was decided to implement the next repoirt, viz~· -.,.
the Third Pay Commissioner's report which prescribed a running scale '
of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from l.l.1973. All the Universiti1's in the
State were directed to implement the same. A question was raised as to
whether placement of teachers already made after Ll.1973 in the pre-
1973 scales would be valid on the implementation of the revised scale
G with effect from l.l.1973. The Government clarified that such•· place-
ment would be valid and protected, subject to the prescrih<od condi-
tions. However, the Pone 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 I.I. 73.
Against this, the appellant and two others approached the High Court
H by way of a Writ Petition. However, the High Court felt that th•ire was
736
C.D. TASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY 737

·-----{ nothing very inequitable about the decision taken by the University A
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 B
to appreciate the fact that the decision of the University authorities was
highly prejudicial to the appellant 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 C
'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 place-
ment in the higher scale of Rs. 700-l l 00 before being brought over to the o
revised scale of Rs. 700-1600. (742B]

2. The Lecturers whose names were recommended for placement
.+- in the higher scale before October 4, 1975 were entitled to such place-
, ment before being brought over to the revised scale ofRs.700-1600. The
appellant was entitled to placement in.the higher scale of Rs.700-1600 E
w.e.f. Julie 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
_.,.--r highly unfair and unjust. The High Court, however took the view that F
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 salary, would have gone up. (74IF-H; 742A] G

.)(-' 3. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of placement
in the higher scale of Rs. 700-IIOO to the appellant from the date he
became entitled to the same i.e. June IS, 1975 and thereafter lix his pay
in the revised scale ofRs.700-1600. The appellant will be entitled to.the
monetary benefit accuring to him on the implementation of the above H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 i>ot-
withstanding their failure to approach this Court, perhaps on
B account of cost constraint, and not drive them to another round of X
litigation.] [742F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 785
of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1987 of the Bombay
C 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
D
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 appeljant, C.D. Tase, joined the college run by Vidhya
E Prasarak Manda!, Thane, on June 15, 1971 as a lecturer in the pay-
scale of Rs.300-25-600 prescribed by the University Grants Commis-
sion 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 r
principle the Government of India scheme based on the reccimmenda- _ -' -- ~
F tions of the University Grants Commission for improvement of salary 1
scales of university 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
G 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 colleges affiliated to them to implement the recommendations
accepted by the State of Maharashtra. The appellant's college was at
the material time affiliated to the University of Pune. The Additional
H Director of Education, Maharashtra State by his letter No. S-95/127-A
C.D. TASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY [AHMADI, J.[ 739

~ dated January 18, 1968 addressed to the Principals of non-Government
A
Arts, Science, Commerce and S.T. Colleges in the State directed the
colleges to implement tl)e 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-
:1t' scales with effect from April 1, 1966. Thus, in the category of lecturers B
(excluding Principals) three scales as stated above were prescri-
bed subject to ·the condition that the number of senior lecturers and
lecturers, senior scale, was not to exceed I/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 c
- 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 D
petitioners would have respectively qualified for the cate-
gory 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 E
appellant was entitled to placement in the senior scale of Rs. 700-40-
1100 with effect from June 15, 1975.

In the meantime, sometime in 1978, a decision was taken to
_•.J..mplement the Third Pay Commission Report prescribing a running
....,, scale of Rs. 700-1600 for teachers with effect from January 1, 1973. All F
the Universities in the State were directed to implement the new scale
of Rs. 700-1600 prescribed 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 ori the 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 clari- G
~· fied 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- H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

quent letter of March 10, 1978 whereby the college managements were -.\r4'
A
directed to ignore the pay-scales prescribed pursuant to the n:com-
mendations of the Second Pay Commission in the case of teachers who
became entitled to the higher scale after January 1, 1973, it was sub-
mitted before the High Court that since the new pay-scale of Rs. 700-
1600 was made operative from January 1, 1973, lecturers who we:re not
B 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 sub-
mission 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.
c
The appellant who argued the case in person submitted that the
High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the decision of the uni-
versity authorities was highly prejudicial to the appellant and others
similarly situated, as it resulted in substantial monetary loss. It must be
D realised that the decision to implement the recommendation of the
Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 was taken sometime in
1978. In the meantime, several, lecturers of affiliated colleges were
placed in the higher scale of Rs.700-1100. That is yvhy, it became
necessary to seek a clarification from the Government whether the ~
placement allowed to such lecturers in the higher scale would be
E treated as valid having regard to the implementation of the new scale
of Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. January 1, 1973. 1 As pointed out earlier, the
Government by their Resolution of June 27, 1978 clarified that such
placement in the higher scale of Rs. 700-1100 was valid subject to
the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. The placement of such
lecturers in the higher scale of Rs.700-1100 was therefore directed to'
F be protected while bringing them on the revised scale of Rs.700-1600.•-·-,.
It follows that if the appellant had been placed in the higher scale of
Rs.700-1100 when he became entitled to it on .Tune 15, 1975 his pay
would have been protected as per the clarification 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/
G university authorities did not place him in the higher scale of Rs. 700-
1100 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
H and Commerce Colleges by the Administrative Officer of Higher Edu-
C.D. TASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY [AHMADI, J.] 741
----~---
1' cation Grants, Bombay Region, Bombay that the college authorities A
were directed to furnish information in the prescribed form in respect
of teacher.~_who were entitled to the benefit of the pre-revised scales of
Rs. 700-11()(1 and Rs.400-800. The Principal of the college forwarded
the information to the Administrative Officer under his letter ACC/
"- lNE/2080 dated March 13/15, 1982 in the prescribed proforma which
f includes the name of the appellant as one of the persons entitled to the B
same benefit. We may incidentally 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. USQ,1178/
' .160692( 19) UNl/4 dated April 7, 1983 issued by the State of
Maharashtra also stipulates as under:
c
"The question of placement of these te~che~s was, there-
-fore, under consideration of Government -for sometime
pasL Government is now pleased to direct that the place-
ment of only those teachers whose names were recommen~
ded for placement in the senior lecturers scale of I.S.S. D
viz.'-' Rs.1100 and 400-800 to the universities by the respec-
tive colleges managements prior to 4th October, 1975 i.e.
the date of issue of Government Resolution assigning re-
vised 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 E
placement is approved by the concerned Universities."
. ' ·' ..
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
J the revised scale of Rs. 700-1600. The appellant was entitled to place- F
ment 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 com-
panions, 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 G
and unjust. The High Court, however took the view that there was
Y _'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 H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1989] 1 S.C.R.
A· salary, would have gone up. In addition they would have eamed incre- -lr'
ments by the time they became entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 700-
1600. It is, therefore, obvious that 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
8
managements had failed to forward in good time. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that 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.

For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
c 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 entitkd to the
same i.e. June 15, 1975 and thereafter fix his pay in the revised scale of
Rs. 700-1600. The appellant will be entitled to the monetary benefit
accruing to him on the implementation of the above directive which
D 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
E
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.f. 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:
F to them the monetary benefits to which they are legally entitled. Wet---.
do hope that the concerned authorities will not drive them to another'·
round of litigation.

G.N. Appeal allowed.