Differentiation In Pay Scales Between School Teachers & University Professors Invalid If Responsibilities Are Same: Calcutta High Court

"Differentiation of pay scales for posts having no difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would not fall within the realm of valid classification." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a University cannot arbitrarily alter the vested service conditions of a teacher by denying pay parity that was maintained for decades.

A bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed that the distinction sought to be created between Assistant Professors of school units and those of University departments lacked a legitimate basis within the University's statutory framework.

The respondent, Sandeep Kumar Bhakat, was appointed as an Assistant Lecturer in Siksha Satra, a school unit of Visva-Bharati University, in 1989. He enjoyed pay parity with University Assistant Professors through the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPC). However, upon the implementation of the 6th CPC in 2006, the University attempted to shift him to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangha (KVS) pay scale, denying him the Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6000 and Ph.D. increments, citing MHRD directives and the threat of lapsed UGC grants.

The primary question before the court was whether the University could unilaterally alter the respondent’s status and pay scale from that of a University teacher to a school teacher after years of parity. The court was also called upon to determine if the definition of 'Adhyapaka' under the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951, allowed for such a distinction between teachers in school units and those in University departments.

Statutory Definition of 'Adhyapaka' Prevents Artificial Distinctions

The Court scrutinized Section 3(c) of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951, which defines the expression 'Adhyapaka'. The bench noted that this definition includes professors, readers, lecturers, and any other person imparting instruction in relation to any learning process. The court observed that within this statutory framework, no artificial distinction can be drawn between Assistant Professors in school units and those in University departments.

The bench emphasized that the two classes cannot be segregated when they are inextricably bound in the University’s own conceptual framework. It was noted that since the respondent’s appointment, both categories of teachers were treated similarly, and the post of an Assistant Professor in a school and that in the University were traditionally linked.

Equality in Duties Requires Parity in Pay

Court Rejects Differentiation Based on Nomenclature

The Court held that the claim for parity was justified as the respondent's duties and responsibilities were equivalent to those of Assistant Professors in the University. The judges remarked that law is not absolute logic but a "handmaid of current social facts of life." They found that the parameters for equality stood satisfied, and thus, the respondent could not be denied similar benefits.

The Court further observed that the nature of work in the school unit was not less onerous than the reference post in the University. The bench held that any differentiation in pay scales for posts that share the same degree of responsibility, reliability, and confidentiality does not constitute a valid classification under the law.

"The nature of work of the subject post is the same and not less onerous than the reference post."

Service Conditions Constitute Status, Not Just Contract

Application of the Roshan Lal Precedent

Referring to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roshan Lal v. Union of India (1967), the High Court reiterated that a contract of service involves not just a contractual relationship but also a 'status'. The bench observed that the conditions of service followed since an incumbent's appointment cannot be altered to their disadvantage arbitrarily.

The Court noted that the denial of Academic Grade Pay after January 1, 2006, had effectively stripped the respondent of his vested and accrued teaching status as an 'Adhyapaka'. Such a move, the court found, was iniquitous and unsustainable, especially since the respondent had acquired the requisite qualifications, including a Ph.D., for the post.

Financial Pressure from UGC No Excuse for Arbitrariness

University Cannot Segregate Classes Under Threat of Grant Lapse

The University argued that it was compelled to alter the respondent's status due to a memorandum from the MHRD and a directive from the UGC, which threatened the lapse of a grant worth Rs. 210 lakhs. The Court, however, remained unimpressed by this justification. It held that the University’s decision to segregate classes merely to secure funding was an arbitrary exercise of power.

The bench noted that there was no allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation against the respondent. It held that the University could not take away benefits that had already vested in the employee. The court found that the Single Judge had rightly exercised discretion in favor of the teacher to prevent an error of law that was apparent on the face of the record.

The Division Bench concluded that there was no patent error in the judgment of the Single Judge that warranted appellate interference. The Court affirmed that the respondent is eligible to receive and maintain his pay as it existed prior to the introduction of the KVS scales. Consequently, the appeal filed by Visva-Bharati was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 17 April 2024