9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberate but utterly perverse and in grossest violation of the orders of this Court and by reason therefore the fruit of the litigation has not yet been made available and being decried to the petitioner for one reason or the other for the last about 15 years. Incidentally, it would be convenient to note that the principal issue involved in the matter pertains to the entitlement of the petitioners to the scale equivalent to that of Physical Instructors in the scale of ₹ 700-1600 as on 2nd July, 1984 and ₹ 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1986. 2 . Turning, however, on to the factual score, it appears that the petitioners are Science Graduates of different universities in the country and have been appointed as Laboratory Assistants in colleges and in addition to their normal duties, the petitioners were supposed to assist the teachers and help the students in practical classes, impart instructions to the students in practical classes and to perform demonstration work including preparation of the lesson units in the practical classes. According to the petitioners these Laboratory Assistants were all along being treated as teaching staff and pay and allowances including the Government s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Graduate Laboratory Assistants working in government colleges have been given the status and designations of Demonstrators and have been accepted as members of teaching staff. According to the petitioners they possess similar qualifications, experience etc. but even though being similarly circumstanced, the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of sponsored and non-government private colleges of West Bengal stand discriminated against the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of Government colleges in West Bengal. The earlier writ petition which stand concluded by this court's order dated 26th July, 1994 contained detailed list of University Acts and Statutes wherein teachers have been defined to include the Instructors . 5. Needless to place on record that by reason of the act of discrimination and having failed to obtain any redress from the State-respondents the petitioners moved the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the earlier Writ Petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants as teaching staff as per the definition contained in different University Act and also to give them a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has very fairly stated that his clients are not asking for the pay-scale of Lecturer. According to him, the pay scale of Physical Instructors is equivalent to that of Demonstrators i.e. pay scale to which his clients are entitled to in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. 9. It is however in terms of the order of this Court as noticed herein above, the State Government on 26th December, 1994 has issued a circular in purported compliance with the order of this Court. Let us however examine the circular and assess the situation ourselves as to the compliance of the earlier order of this Court. The circular reads as below :- In the circumstances, the Governor is pleased to order that the scale of pay in respect of all Graduate Laboratory Instructors of non- Government colleges may be revised to ₹ 1390- 45-1615-55-2055-65-2445-75-2970 with effect from 1st August, 1987 and the arrears involved on account of revision of their scale of pay paid in the manner as indicated above. The Governor is further pleased to order that the Graduate Laboratory Instructors of Non- Government Colleges shall continue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and subsequently, the contemnor No. 2 issued a notice requiring the petitioners to attend the hearing before the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education on 18th May, 2001. Some correspondence exchanged between the parties whereas the petitioners contended immediate compliance with the order of this Court, the alleged contemnors tried to feign ignorance about the earlier litigation and requested for supply of all copies of the relevant documents which, as the record depicts, stand supplied immediately thereafter. There has however been a total silence thereafter and the petitioners felt it incumbent upon themselves to bring it to the notice of this Court by way of a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act. 13. Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic statutory features ought to be noticed at this juncture. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the Statute Book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in the country undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law Courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual facts as a deliberate and willful act, both Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors, rather strongly ventilated their negation to the accusations of Mr. Ganguli. 17. It is at this stage that the earlier order passed by this Court may be of some relevance and the same reads as below: A teacher cannot possibly be allowed a pay scale of a non-teaching post. The same is a contradiction in terms and we need not dilate thereon. The criterion of fixation of pay scale is dependent upon the placement of the person concerned in the event the placement is in a teaching post obviously one expects to get a pay scale fixed for a teacher and not for a non- teaching member of the staff. Apparently the High Court has not dealt with the issue in this perspective and thus clearly fell into an error in categorising a teacher with a non-teaching pay scale. The circular clearly authorises the Graduate Laboratory Instructors of non- government colleges to continue to have the teaching status but decries the financial benefits therefore! Would the same be not an arbitrary exercise of powers or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 8.16. The annual report details out teachers of government colleges in the manner as below: 8.16. Teachers of government colleges Sl. Category of teachers Pay Scale No. (Basic) w.e.f. 1.1.1986 Demonstrator ₹ 1740-3000 4. Physical Instructor ₹ 2200- 4000 3. Lecturer ₹ 2200-4000 2. Professor/Vice-Principal ₹ 3700-5700 (Grade II) 1. Principal ₹ 4500-7300 Para 8.2.1 also records the details of the administration of nongovernment colleges as below: The teachers of non-government colleges are of the following categories (basic): 1. Laboratory Instructors ₹ 1390-2970 2. Demonstrators 3. Physical Instructor as in government 4. Lecturer colleges. 5. Principal This itself however negates the contentions as raised by the State. Laboratory Instructors in non-government colleges are termed as teachers with scale of pay ₹ 1390-2970 whereas Physical Instructors were also termed as teachers and scale of pay appears to be similar as in government colleges i.e. ₹ 2200-4000. Secondly, in para 8.2.4 revised pay scale of the non-teaching posts (Group B pay scale) has been noted to be ₹ 1390-2970. It thus leaves no mann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise in the facts presently. Is it a believable state of affairs that the order of the learned Single Judge as early as the first writ petition, has not been properly understood by the senior most bureaucrat of the State Government : the same misunderstanding continues in terms of the appellate Court's order and the third in the line of order is that of the apex Court. The understanding again continues even after the second writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge at the High Court and the similar understanding continues even after the so to say clarificatory order by this Court, as appears from the order dated 20th April, 2001. Even in the counter-affidavit, filed in Contempt Petition, the understanding still continues we are at a loss as to what is this understanding about : the defence of 'understanding' undoubtedly is an ingenious effort to avoid the rigours of an order of Court but cannot obliterate the action the attempted avoidance through the introduction of the so-called concept of lack of understanding cannot, however, be a permanent avoidance, though there may be temporary and short-lived gains. The order of this Court cannot possibly be inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
