IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.09.2011 Dr. Raghbir Singh Malik son of Shri Sher Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Extension Education, and others. ....Petitioners versus Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, through its Registrar, and another. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.6959 of 1992 (O&M) Dr. N.K. Sangwan son of Maha Singh, at present working as Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry, and others. ....Petitioners versus Ch. Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, through its Vice Chancellor, and others. ....Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.1271 of 1994 (O&M) Dr. Rajiv Angrish son of Dr. Ved Parkash Angrish, Associate Professor (Plant Physiology)/Equivalent Rice Research Station, C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University, District Kaithal, and another. ....Petitioners versus Ch. Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, through its Vice Chancellor, and others. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - IV. Civil Writ Petition No.99 of 1998 (O&M) Dr. K.C. Satija at present working as Professor-cum-Senior Eqidemiologist in CCS Haryana Agricultural University at Hissar ....Petitioners versus Ch. Charan Singh (CCS), Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, through its Vice Chancellor, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, and Mr. Saroj Malakar, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents 3 and 4. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.5. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. All the four cases address the same issue of the tenability of the differential scales of pay for the Assistant Professors and Associate Professors working in the Agricultural University of Haryana. The petitioners have come by different scales under circumstances that by virtue of a cut-off date for the holding of the Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - respective positions as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor, there had been a denial of certain scales which, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary. As an additional ground, the petitioner would also contend that the Assistant Professors or Associate Professors belonged to the same class, doing the same work amongst the respective categories, there cannot be a discrimination in allowing for different scales of pay to prevail among persons within the same category. According to the petitioners, the differential scales that have come through the application of Carrier Advancement Scheme would resonate against 'equal pay, equal work' principle and was hence, legally suspect. The brief details of the cases are under: 2. The petitioners in various petitions are either Associate Professors or Assistant Professors in various colleges under the Haryana Agricultural University. The University Grants Commission (UGC) issued notification regarding the revision of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986, which was adopted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on 01.02.1988. All the salaries to the teachers were being funded by ICAR to the extent of 80% and by the State of the extent of 20% and, therefore, the State, while adopting the scales of pay, had perforce to follow the instructions of ICAR. While allowing for the UGC scales to apply to the various classes of persons, ICAR had directed that it would be applicable only to cases of persons, who held the respective posts as on Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - 01.02.1988, the date when ICAR adopted the recommendations of UGC. 3. The categories of employees to which the increased scales were relevant were, as we have seen before, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in the higher order of hierarchy. The increase in scales were to be secured under a Merit Promotion Scheme (MPS) when they were promoted from a lower post to the next higher post on completion of certain number of years of service and who had certain higher educational qualifications such as, Phd. etc. Apart from the MPS, there was a newly introduced Carrier Advancement Scheme (CAS) which provided for higher scales without reference to higher qualification or promotions on the completion of certain years of service only. The persons such as, Assistant Professors and Associate Professors had a right of option to exercise when the new scales were brought as per the UGC recommendations as adopted by ICAR. The scales of pay of the various categories before 01.02.1988 and after 01.02.1988 under MPS, as well as the scales that were applicable under CAS after 01.02.1988 could be tabulated as follows:- Scales of pay under MPS before 01.02.1988 Scales of pay under MPS after 01.02.1988 Scales of pay under CAS after 01.02.1988 Assistant Professor 2200-4000 Assistant Professor 2200-4000 Assistant Professor 2200-4000 Associate Professor 3700-5700 Associate Professor 3000-5000 Assistant Scientist (Senior Scale) 3000-5000 Professor 4500-7300 Professor 4500-5700 Associate Professor 3700-5700 4. The grievance could be easily noticed that a person, who Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 5 - had occupied the post as Associate Professor by way of promotion from Assistant Professor's post before 01.02.1988, he would have drawn a salary of Rs.3700-5700, but if the promotion had come about subsequent to 01.02.1988 would have been placed on lower scale, namely, 3000-5000. The same way, it could be noticed, the Associate Professor, who obtains to such post under CAS will be placed in the scales of 3700-5700, but he would be in the scale of 3000-5000 if he had been promoted under MPS. It is these variations which are the cause for the heart burn, as it were. 5. The cut-off period as resulting in various scales must be examined from the perspective of whether it is arbitrary. The petitioners were relying on the recommendations of the University itself which pleaded with the Government for addressing the grievances of the petitioners. If we notice that the scales of pay were on the recommendations of UGC as adopted by ICAR, inevitably, the authority that bears 80% of the financial obligations had a right to plan its own outlay. Whenever any scheme was implemented for higher scales, it was imperative that it should be effective from a particular date. The justification could arise by the only fact that in budgetary allocation, it could provide for certain scales for the classes of persons, who had obtained promotions by a particular date. If ICAR had decided to apply the increased scales for persons promoted before 01.02.1988 and was restricting its inapplicability to persons, who gained promotion after 01.02.1988, it cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 6 - faulted for the cut-off date itself was not arbitrary, but that was the date when ICAR took the decision to adopt the UGC scales. The issue of cut-off date in the manner of increased emoluments of pension have come through several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and if a rational justification could be seen, it will be not for the Court to find a cause or justification for parity. It shall be the expert's body which would determine the scales and the assumption of higher financial liability before particular dates were themselves sufficient justification. The promotions under the MPS were in their own positions by higher educational qualification and on completion of certain number of years, irrespective of the number of posts which were available on the higher posts. If, for such a circumstance, ICAR was restricting the higher scales to persons, who already secured a promotion on 01.02.1988, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. 6. The same way an Associate Professor, who secures higher scales merely on the strength of seniority is a different class by himself, for his position has no bearing to the acquisition of any higher qualification. If an option is exercised for securing the scales under CAS by the teachers, they cannot state midway that they should have a parity with persons, who secured the scales under MPS. Perhaps in the nomenclature of the posts, there could have been some difference under CAS for an Assistant Professor, who after a number of years draws a scale applicable to Assistant Civil Writ Petition No.5074 of 1989 (O&M) - 7 - Scientist (Senior Scale) before he moves to the next scale as Associate Professor. If instead of Associate Professor a different terminology had been used such as Assistant Scientist (Super Senior Scale), the seeming disparity for the same nomenclature of posts could have been avoided. But I recognize that the persons that move up the scale by the seniority rule under CAS form a distinct category in so far as the applicability of the scales are concerned by a conscious option exercised by a teacher and there could be no cause for complaint by the teacher who opts under MPS that the scales of pay were not equivalent. In all these cases, the different scales have obtained in two ways: one, by the applicability of the cut-off period rule; two, by the fact that they occupied the respective posts by the option either under MPS or CAS. There was a differential criteria for the application of different scales and there is no arbitrariness that is involved to complain of violation under Article 14 of the constitution. 7. I do not find, under the circumstances, any scope for favourable intervention in favour of the petitioners. All the writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 20.09.2011 sanjeev