2003 (10) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the post of Part-Time Lecturer is not contemplated as a cadre post under the Rules? Whether the appellants being not in the regular employment, the principles of service jurisprudence cannot be extended to an advocate who is acting as a Part-Time Lecturer?

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Entitlement to proportionate increase in remuneration for Part-Time Lecturers.
3. Applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
4. Legal rights of Part-Time Lecturers engaged on a contractual basis.
5. Consideration of Part-Time Lecturers as cadre posts under the Rules.

Condonation of Delay:
The case involved a delay of 460 days in filing a Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Tripura, which was subsequently condoned by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants argued against the condonation, alleging no sufficient cause was shown. However, the Division Bench found the State had provided enough justification for the delay, emphasizing the discretionary nature of condonation powers.

Proportionate Increase in Remuneration:
The appellants, who were Part-Time Lecturers, sought a proportionate increase in remuneration based on the principle of parity in pay. The High Court had initially applied the principle of equal pay for equal work, citing a previous Supreme Court decision. However, the appellants clarified that they did not seek regularization of their job or invoke the Minimum Wages Act, leading to a distinction made by the Division Bench regarding the applicability of the equal pay principle.

Equal Pay for Equal Work:
The issue of whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applied to the Part-Time Lecturers was debated. The appellants contended that this principle did not apply to their case, as they were not seeking absorption as regular teachers. The Division Bench concurred, stating that the appellants' situation did not align with the conditions necessary for the equal pay principle to be invoked.

Legal Rights of Part-Time Lecturers:
The appellants were engaged on a contractual basis and were not appointed as per the rules for regular teachers. As such, they did not have a legal right to demand the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors. The Court emphasized that the determination of pay scale is tied to the appointment under the relevant statute, not contractual terms. The appellants' additional duties of checking answer books and setting exam papers were acknowledged, with the university providing extra remuneration for such tasks.

Cadre Posts for Part-Time Lecturers:
The judgment clarified that the post of Part-Time Lecturer was not considered a cadre post under the Rules. Since the appellants were not in regular employment, the principles of service jurisprudence applicable to regular employees did not extend to advocates serving as Part-Time Lecturers.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants. The Court held that the appellants, as Part-Time Lecturers engaged on a contractual basis, did not have the legal standing to demand the minimum pay scale of regular Assistant Professors. The judgment emphasized the distinction between contractual engagements and regular appointments in determining remuneration and entitlements.