Mumbai:
Can different pay scales be prescribed for two sets of employees performing the same duties on the basis of their educational qualification? Yes, says the Bombay high court, and adds that there is a "reasonable classification" which entitles a candidate with higher qualification to receive a higher pay scale.
The division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice Mridula Bhatkar recently held that such action cannot be faulted on the ground of violating fundamental rights of equality and equal opportunities in public places.
In 1999, a petition was filed by the Mumbai Junior College Teachers Association on behalf of the Teachers Association and five individual teachers challenging the "arbitrary" reduction of their pay scale from Rs4000 to 2500 and from Rs2600 to 1400. They were drawing the higher amount for five years.
The petitioners were graduates and teachers in Physical Education. On 14 October, 1992, a government resolution prescribed higher scale for teachers with post-graduate degrees. But colleges fixed higher pay scales even for the graduate teachers, including those from the association.
On 8 October, 1998, the Director of Education ordered recovery of the excess amount paid to the teachers who were BSc or BEd, and they were subsequently placed in the lower pay scale. The association moved the high court which stayed the recovery, pending outcome of the petition. On 14 December, 1998, the state asked the colleges the particulars of the teachers who were given higher pay scales.
Petitioners lawyer Mihir Desai argued that the teachers were rightly given higher scale by the colleges as they were doing the same duty along with teachers with post-graduate degrees. He said in view of the principle of equal pay for equal work, the department should not have discriminated between the two.
But the judges said in view of the 1994 SC judgment on the Shyam Babu Verma versus Union case it was not possible to accept Desai's submission. "Since such classification is held to be reasonable classification we do not find any substance in the petition," the judges stated.
In their November 22, 2010 judgment, the judges set aside the order of recovery observing: "The petitioners are not instrumental in any manner, nor have they committed fraud for getting higher pay scale's benefit."
Copyright restricted. Under license from
www.3dsyndication.com