ANIL RATAN SARKAR Vs. HIRAK GHOSH
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on March 08,2002

ANIL RATAN SARKAR Appellant
VERSUS
HIRAK GHOSH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MRITYUNJOY DAS VS. SAYED HASIBUR RAHAMAN [REFERRED]
CHHOTU RAM VS. URVASHI GULATI [REFERRED . (PARA 13) 2.]



Cited Judgements :-

JOGINDER PAL VS. AMIT KASHYAP [LAWS(HPH)-2022-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI, NETAJI NAGAR VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION VS. DEBESWAR BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABHILASH CHAND AND OTHERS VS. SANJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
C.J.M. FATEHPUR VS. PRAKASH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-145] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA MANSION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION [LAWS(APH)-2011-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
P ANJAMMA VS. NIROOL KUMAR PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE A. GIRIDHAR VS. IN RE A. GIRIDHAR [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
N. PRATEEP KUMAR VS. M. JAGADEESH CHANDRA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2022-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
K. MALLAIAH AND ORS. VS. SANDEEP KUMAR SULTANIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
PHULESHWAR VS. MAYA NIRANJAN [LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA ITDC WORKERS UNION VS. B K SINHA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-422] [REFERRED TO]
ASIAD VILLAGE SOCIETY VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2002-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
PWD & FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION VS. POONAM CHAND PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKISHAN VS. MADAN LAL @ MADAN MOHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
SUGESAN TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. E.C.BOSE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-681] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM SHRIVASTAVA VS. CHANDRAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-705] [REFERRED TO]
U.N.BORA, EX.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VS. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAMA SINGH VS. BADRI NARAYAN SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. TARUN BAJAJ [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
VELDANDA SRILATHA VS. GUNDUMALLA ANANTHA REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE MATHEW VS. SATYAJEET RAJAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-160] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SURHA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
D.K.C. VS. K.C. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-293] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. P.C. DHIMAN AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. KAUSHALAYA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-7-169] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA SHRESTHA VS. JAY RANDOLPH VASS [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. HARISH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
COLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2004-7-11] [RFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. GTC INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2004-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION (ROSIMUSHCESTVO) VS. SARAF AGENCY PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2020-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
A SANTHI KUMARI VS. K RAVI [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VS. SRI K. NAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2017-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
ALEX PAUL MENON VS. VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
A SANTHI KUMARI VS. K RAVI [LAWS(APH)-2002-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
K. SITARAMA REDDY VS. AJAY JAIN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-152] [REFERRED TO]
SODA RAMULU VS. K L V PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
T GIRIJA KUMARI VS. K VENKATESWARA RAO COMMISSIONER ANAKAPALLI MUNICIPALITY ANAKAPALLI VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-2012-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
G. RIKHABCHAND VS. KARUNAKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
HEALTH AND GLOW RETAILING PVT LTD VS. DHIREN KRISHNA PAUL TRADING AS HEALTH AND GLOW CLINIC [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-321] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA DEVI MISHRA VS. PRIYANSHU KAMAL [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI VS. PATEL CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
HUKUM CHAND DESWAL VS. SATISH RAJ DESWAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUVEER SINGH VS. SHIV KUMAR SWAMI [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
ALL BENGALEXICES LICENSEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAINAB KHATOON ALIAS TAHIRA VS. OM PRAKASH VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
ATHAR ALI KHAN VS. KHALEEQ AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-261] [REFERRED TO]
POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI VS. PARCHURI KOTESHWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
D TULJA DEVI VS. MARGAM SHANKAR [LAWS(APH)-2009-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
B KRISHNA REDDY VS. PUSHPA SUBRAHMANYAM [LAWS(APH)-2011-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
J. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
S NARSIMHA RAO VS. P ARUN BABU [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LIMITED VS. AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-233] [REFERRED TO]
RUSTAM PHIROZE MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
NEX TENDERS INDIA PVT. LTD VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND DISPOSALS [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-415] [REFERRED TO]
PHAIREMBAM SHEITYAMALA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
MAYANGLAMBAM GAMBHIR SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
LOYALAKPA WAHENGBAM ANANTA VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2009-9-6] [REFERRED]
RAM BILASH MAHTO AND ORS. VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS UNION AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
AIRCEL CELLULAR LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
C.A.MOHMED ABDUL HUQ VS. S.MANOHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-149] [REFERRED TO]
V.THIRULOKACHANDER VS. E.KANNAN, SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
G. SUBBAMMAL VS. RAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
N. RAMADAS VS. C.A. MOHAMED ABDUL HUQ [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
M . K. PREMALATHA@ LALITHA VS. GANGADHAR [LAWS(KAR)-2012-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PASRICHA VS. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
B SUGUNA DEVI VS. C B S VENKATA RAMANA [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: SRI V. SATYANARAYANA RAO S/O. SRI V.C. RAO VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2007-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN TALKIES VS. RAJESH KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
MATRIX CELLULAR SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. SANJOY MUKHERJI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-167] [REFERRED TO]
SAHDEO ALIAS SAHDEO SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2010-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
C ELUMALAI VS. A G L IRUDAYARAJ [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAKANTON M.N VS. B.ANDREW PRABHU [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
Prakash Saha VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
P PUGALENTHI VS. THIRU S S JAWAHAR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-242] [REFERRED TO]
VASNATHA MEENA ENTERPRISES VS. BASKARAN DIRECTOR OF DRUGS CONTROL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-324] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2004-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
BISHWA MOHAN KUMAR SINGH VS. BIHAR EDUCATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(PAT)-2010-5-206] [REFERRED TO]
P. MOHANRAJ VS. M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAOREM DEEPAK SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2009-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANT BANSILAL BAMB VS. NANAD LAL [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
GOYAL MG GASES PVT LTD VS. AIR LIQUIDE DEUTCHLAND GAMBH [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
CHINCHWAD DEVASTHAN TRUST VS. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
N VENKATA SWAMY NAIDU VS. SRI SURYA TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SALAUDDIN VS. GORACHAND MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-85] [REFERRED TO]
THAKSEN WAMAN DAVALE & ORS VS. SUBHAS D SONAWANE & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-284] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR APARTMENT FLAT OWNERS SCTY VS. SEQUOIA CONST P LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
R STANLEY VEDAMANICKAM VS. CSI TUTICORIN NAZARETH DIOCESE, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS BISHOP [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
Bharat Prasad VS. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.Bokaro Steel Plant City [LAWS(JHAR)-2006-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
N SRINIVAS VS. NARESH KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-163] [REFERRED TO]
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI PATEL VS. CHANDRAKANT DHULABHAI PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM VS. L K TRIPATHI [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-54] [REFEREED TO]
GANTA SUDHEER KUMAR VS. T. NAGI REDDY, COMMISSIONER [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-6-101] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA RAM VS. ASHOK SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-182] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI KAPOOR VS. ANSHUMAN KAPUR [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-200] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-287] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH WATHAR VS. SADHANA SHASHIKANT WAIKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
PRALHAD VS. SULOCHANA RAMCHANDRA KAWARKHE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIB KUMAR BOSE VS. SMT. ROMA BOSE & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-148] [REFERRED TO]
SEJUBEN WD/O RAICHAND BALUBHAI ODE VS. SANGITA SINGH OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFICE, SECRETARY (APPEALS) STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-273] [REFERRED TO]
P.PADMAVATHI BAI VS. C.HARI KIRAN [LAWS(APH)-2023-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
SABZA ALI AND OTHERS VS. MR. M. RAGHUNANDAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, R.R. DISTRICT,LAKDIKAPUL, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
SOMANNA VS. T.M. MAHADEVAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SUNILKUMAR POPATBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-654] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ KANTA VS. JAI PARKESH [LAWS(P&H)-2023-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION VS. RAGHAVENDRA SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION VS. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
K SHANMUGAM VS. K KAMARAJ COIMBATORE DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-361] [REFERRED TO]
S CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES VS. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
JAMALS VS. P SYAMALA PROPRIETRIX PRAJWAL ASSOCIATES [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VASUDEVA VS. M GEORGE RAVI SHEKERAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
CHALLAPALLI RAVI VS. B KRUPANADAM I A S [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO VS. BOMMAJI DANAM [LAWS(APH)-2013-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. MUKUL SINGHAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SINGH VS. ISHWAR SARAN SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-151] [REFERRED TO]
TAPSI PATRA VS. SONALI SADHUKHAN [LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL METRO CIVIL CONTRACTORS VS. R K VERMA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-11-118] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. UDAI PRATAP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI RATHI VS. GAJENDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
V.R.S.V.N.SAMBASIVA RAO VS. V.RAMA KRISHNA [LAWS(APH)-2023-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU VS. MRS. MEENA M. DONGRE AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
BHANGU RAM VS. SAVITA SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2021-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA SHETTY A VS. A.T. BABU RAO [LAWS(KAR)-2019-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
KAMRUNISHA WD/O MOHD. UMAR VS. KARORABAI W/O MATAFER GUPTA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHANKAR VS. RAJEEV PANDEY, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/CITY MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
BIJIGA PAPA RAO VS. JONNALAGADDA SRINIVASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2014-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
VAJJA RAJABABU VS. G. KISTA GOUD [LAWS(APH)-2018-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
K SITARAMA REDDY VS. AJAY JAIN [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHENDU SEN VS. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI PHANI CHAKRABORTY VS. GOVERNING BODY OF KRISHNANAGAR WOMENS COLLEGE [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. R.KRISHNAMOORTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-189] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. GURURAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2007-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MP VS. NEELIMA SIMGH [LAWS(MPH)-2007-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
ANTONY RAOD TRANSPORT SOULUTION PVT LTD VS. VARSHA JOSHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
UMA DUTT AND ORS. VS. SRIKANT BALDI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
SONAL AASHISH MADHAPARIYA VS. AASHISH HARJIBHAI MADHAPARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-518] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDER AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-12-434] [REFERRED TO]
LALSANGLIANA, S/O RAMHLUNA HNAMTE VS. ANIL VINWAS [LAWS(GAU)-2014-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI VS. HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. HILL ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD. VS. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL, UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH PANDA VS. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SRI PRAKASH CHANDRA GIRI [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
P SHANMUGAM AND ORS VS. THIRU DEBENDRANATH SARANGI, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPT AND THIRU C K SRIDHARAN, PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-762] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

BANERJEE, J. - (1.)THE most accepted methodology of Government working ought always to be fairness and in the event of its absence, law Courts would be within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter appropriately. This proposition is so well settled that we need not dilate further on to this. It is this concept of fairness which Mr. Ganguli, appearing in support of the petition for contempt very strongly contended, is totally absent in spite of three final rounds of litigation upto this Court between the parties. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors, however, contended that the conduct of the respondents can neither be termed to be unfair or in disregard to the orders of the Court on a true reading of the order - this stand of the respondents, however, stands negated by Mr. Ganguli. THE conduct, Mr. Ganguli, contended, is not only deliberate but utterly perverse and in grossest violation of the orders of this Court and by reason therefor 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. Incidently, 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 Rs. 700-1600 as on 2/07/1984 and Rs. 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 share of Dearness Allowances were paid to them until the issuance of the Government Order No. 288 - Education (CS) dated 21/03/1969 wherein Laboratory Assistants of non-government affiliated colleges were treated as members of the non-teaching staff. The effect of such re-designation had a direct impact as regards the payment of Dearness Allowances and obviously the same being prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners, representations followed against the Government Order, but, however, to no effect. Representations were also made by reason of the withdrawal ofteaching status as the Graduate Laboratory Assistants had to discharge teaching function as well, apart from the normal conduct of the Laboratory work.
The factual score depict that subsequently in August, 1983 the State Government redesignated the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors - it is on this score that Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition very strongly criticised. The change of nomenclature according to him was otherwise meaningless as there was neither any conferment of status of teachers or the grant of any pay scale consistent with the teaching status. The Government notification was attributed to be a mischievous deception and a "hoax" - a rather strong criticism : the question, therefore, arises whether there was any justification of such an attribute to the Government notification dated 10/08/1983 : a short question consequently, thus - what was the necessity for issuance of such an order - would the change of nomenclature assist in any way the Graduate Laboratory Assistants? A bare perusal of the notification does not howsoever give any reason whatsoever as to the necessity of its issuance - the notification on the contrary makes it clear that there would be no enhancement of pay as also the status as non-teaching staff would remain unchanged : It is only the word "Assistant" was replaced by the word "Instructors" - but does that confer any material benefit to the persons concerned? The answer cannot in the factual context but be in the negative. It is on this background and upon perusal of the notification, Mr. Ganguli's criticism seems to be rather apposite though couched in a very strong language but by reason of the fact-situation of the matter in issue and if we may say so, probably justifiably so.

Be it noted that 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 26/07/1994 contained detailed list of University Acts and Statutes wherein "teachers" have been defined to "include the Instructors".

(3.)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 Instructors. By a judgment and order dated 29/07/1987 the learned single Judge issued a writ of Mandamus upon a detailed judgment the operative portion whereof is set out herein below :-
". . . . . . . . . The Rule accordingly is made absolute and the State respondents are hereby commanded by the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants who have already been redesignated as "Laboratory Instructors" as teaching staff and to pay them in accordance with the existing scale of pay prescribed for the Physical Instructors with effect from 10/08/1983 with all arrears."

The appeal taken therefrom by the State Government resulted in confirmation of the order by the judgment of the Appellate Bench dated 15/05/1992. The State of West Bengal, however, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court moved a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court and this Court finally on 26/07/1994 refused to interfere with the order and disposed of the matter with a speaking order. Relevant extracts of the same however are set out herein below :-

". . . . . .the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the findings of the learned single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. Weare, however, of the view that the respondents-petitioners be paid the revised scale of pay, as directed by the High Court, with effect from 1/08/1987 instead of 10/08/1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The arrears shall be paid to the respondents in two installments, first by the end of February, 1995 and the second installment by 31/08/1995. The appeal is dismissed with the above modifications. No costs."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.