IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.25527 of 2006 Between: G.Babaiah … Petitioner And Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.25527 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the respondent in paying salaries to the Field Supervisors equal to the Class IV Employees, where as Field Supervisor post is superior to the post of Class IV Employees, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the principles of natural justice. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is working as a Field Supervisor in the respondent’s University. Initially, he was appointed as agricultural workman on 01.07.1983 and subsequently, he got promotion as Field Supervisor vide proceedings No.1493/FDS/98, dated 21.05.1998 and he joined on 29.05.1998 in the said promoted post and the said promotion was on purely temporary basis. It is also submitted that before commencement of the Revision Pay Scale 1986, the post of Field Supervisor and Record Assistant were treated as superior post to the post of Class IV Employees and the Pay Scale of the Field Supervisor was equivalent to the scale of Record Assistant. But in the Revised Pay Scales of 1986, the scale of Field Supervisor has been lowered and equated with the pay scale of Class IV Employees i.e. equated with inferior post. Since then, the pay scale of Field Supervisor has not been equated with the Record Assistant. Further, after the Revised Pay Scales, 1986, the pay scale of the Field Supervisors, who got promotion from Class IV categories, was not increased and their pay scale was equal to the Class IV Employees. Further, the Field Supervisors attain superannuation at the age of 58 years and whereas Class IV Employees attain Superannuation at the age of 60 years. On equating the pay scale of Field Supervisors with that of Class IV Employees, the Field Supervisors have become the worst sufferers with regard to the service conditions (i.e., regarding the age of retirement), though the post of Field Supervisor is superior to the post of Class IV Employees. Had the petitioner continued to remain as Class IV Employee without opting for promotion, he would have been in a much better position than the Field Supervisor and this is a result of the discrimination in pursuance of the Revised Pay Scales. When the post of Field Supervisor is superior to the post of Class IV Employees, the pay scale also must be higher to that of the Class IV employees, but, whereas the Field Supervisor is being paid the salary equal to the salary of Class IV employees. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondent, counter has been filed, inter alia, stating that prior to Revised Pay Scales 1986, the post of Field Supervisor was assigned the scale of pay of Rs.350-550, which was equivalent to that of Record Assistant. But in the Revised Pay Scales 1986, the post of Field Supervisor was assigned scale of pay equal to Class IV scale of Rs.740-1150. In the subsequent Revised Pay Scales i.e. 1993 and 1999, the post of Field Supervisor was assigned the scale of pay of Rs.1425-2525 and 2650-4850, respectively, which are just above the Class IV scale but below the scale of pay of Record Assistant. Assignment of pay scales to various categories of post is not within the purview of the respondent’s University. On the recommendations of Pay Revision Commission, the Government will assign the scales to different categories while adopting revised pay scales to its employees and the University implements the same scales to its employees. Further, the Government has communicated the Revised Pay Scales, 2005 scales, vide G.O.(P) No.255, Finance (PC-1) Department, dated 10.10.2005 for implementation in the University. The revised scale assigned to the post of Field Supervisor is Rs.3950-8815, which is higher than that of Class IV scale i.e. 3850- 8600. Further, the petitioner, on promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, is drawing the scale of Rs.1425-2525 and 2650-4850, which were assigned by the Government in Revised pay Scales, 1993 and 1999, respectively, which were above the scales assigned to Class IV post and presently he is drawing his pay in the corresponding scale of pay of Rs.3950-8815, which has been assigned by the Government to the post of Field Supervisor in Revised Pay Scales, 2005. Therefore, there is no discrimination on the part of the University and accordingly it is sought for dismissal of the writ petition. The main case of the petitioner is that though the post of Field Supervisor is higher to the post of Class IV, he is getting his pay almost equal to that of Class IV Employees. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, it is submitted that prior to Revised Pay Scales 1986, there were some anomalies but based on the representation made by the affected employees, anomalies have been clarified and scales have been revised and accordingly, the different scales have been assigned to the post of Class IV Employees and to the post of Field Supervisors. The petitioner, consequent to the promotion to the post of Field Supervisor, has been getting the scale of Rs.1425-2525 and 2650-4850 from the Revised Pay Scales of 1993 and 1999, respectively. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.No.18928 of 2001, dated 05.07.2005. He also submitted that pursuant to the judgment referred to above, passed by this Court, the respondent University, issued proceedings No.2179/BGT/A1/2007, dated 28.09.2007, implementing the scales attached to the post of various categories including Field Supervisors. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief sought for in the instant writ petition. This Court in the judgment referred to above, while dealing with the issue of pay scales of various categories had held as under: “Whenever there is a revision of pay scales, that is to say, in the years 1986, 1993 and 1999, the pay scales have been extended to the petitioners. Having extended the pay scales whenever there is a revision to the employees of the 1st respondent, there is no basis or any reason of whatsoever in not extending the same benefit when the revision of pay scales took place in the year1986. Even in the year 1986, the Schedule-II pay scales have been extended to the employees who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners of all the Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh and also the Government departments. So, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of two sets of similarly situated persons. There is no intelligible difference for the employees working in the other Universities and the employees working in the 1st respondent-University with regard to the nature of duties and functions. What is the object that is sought to be achieved in not implementing 1986 Schedule II of pay scales and not extending the same to the petitioners has not been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is clearly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and there is a discrimination in not extending the Schedule-II pay scales of the year 1986. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if the same is extended to the petitioners, they will not claim any monetary benefit from the year 1986 onwards and the pay scales of the petitioners have to be fixed notionally. There is no other reason for not extending 1986 Schedule-II pay scales to the petitioners and it is a clear case where the Government has discriminated in extending the pay scales. The 1st respondent-University addressed a letter to the Government and at the instance of the 1st respondent an anomalies committee has been constituted and the committee also submitted a report to the Government for rectifying the anomalies for these 32 left over categories of posts for assigning Schedule II pay scales where under the posts of the petitioners admittedly belonged to these left over 32 categories. Hence this writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to take steps to approve the pay scales proposed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 21.7.1993 with respect to the 4 left over categories and approve the pay scales of the petitioners by applying Schedule-II pay scales of 1986 without any monetary benefits from 1.7.1986 but after applying Scheudle-II pay scales of 1986 fix the pay of the petitioners in the revised pay scales of 1993 and 1999 notionally. The said exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners to extend the benefits like qualification linked increments to the petitioners as are applicable to the employees working in other public libraries, the same cannot be given in view of the fact that there is no factual foundation with regard to the fact that the functions and duties of the employees of those public libraries are equal to that of the employees like the petitioners. In the circumstances, no costs.” Pursuant to the judgment referred to above, the respondent- University issued proceedings No.2179/BG/A1/2007, dated 28.09.2007, along with a list including the category of Field Supervisor fixing the revised pay scales. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent is paying the scales to the Filed Supervisor equal to that of the Class IV employees. However, the aforesaid case was with regard to the approval of pay-scales whereas the case on hand stands on a different footing, as such, the aforesaid judgment has no application to the case on hand. Moreover, it has been made clear in the counter affidavit that after the revised pay scales 2005 the scale of pay of Field Supervisor is higher than that of the Class IV Employee and that the petitioner is placed in a higher scale of Rs.3950-8815 and all the averments of the petitioner are emphatically denied. However, the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court showing the scale of the Field Supervisor in comparison with the scale of the Class IV employees and how it is being equated with the class IV employees. In the absence of any such material placed before this Court, it cannot be said that discrimination is done by the 1st respondent in extending the pay scales. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petitioner has not made out any case to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. But however, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a specific case before the authorities in a separate representation within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, as to the manner in which his scale of pay is being equated with that of class IV employees, and thereafter, the respondents are directed to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-03-2010 LSK