- (1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 16. 7. 93, Annexure 10 to the petition and have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the same salary to the petitioners which is being paid to the Lecturers of State Ayurvedic College, Lucknow.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vinod Misra learned counsel for petitioners and learned Stand ing Counsel for the respondents. It has been alleged in Para 8 of the writ petition that an advertisement was is sued inviting applications for the posts of Lecturers in Sanskrit at a fixed pay of Rs. 500/- per month in Government Ayurvedic College vide Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioners possess the requisite qualifications and they applied for the said posts. They were called for the interview on 27. 2. 88 and they appeared before the selec tion committee and they were selected and appointed as part time teachers at a fixed salary of Rs. 500/- per month by the Direc tor, Ayurvedic and Unani Seva, Lucknow vide Annexure 4 to the petition. All the petitioners were appointed in March, 1988. In Para 15 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioners were required to teach Sanskrit to the students of the First to final years of B. A. M. S. course. In Para 18 of the petition it is stated that the Sanskrit teachers lecturers who have been attached to the colleges concerned, are required to teach to the B. A. M. S. students every day. The time table dated 16. 8. 90 for the session 1992-93 of the 1st, IInd and IIIrd year stu dents of the State Ayurvedic College, Bareilly shows that the petitioners had to teach from 9. 15 to 10. 00 a. m. to IInd and IIIrd years students and from 10. 45 to 11. 30 a. m. to 1st year students every day of the week. True copy of the time table is Annexure 7. In Para 19 of the petition it is alleged that the strength of students taught by the petitioners is about 40 in each classes and the strength of students at the State Ayurvedic College Lucknow is also the same. In Para 26 of the petition it is stated that the petitioners completed five years uninterrupted services in March, 1991 and their work and conduct was satisfactory throughout. In para 21 it is alleged that the petitioners are working whole time in the college with no other earnings and callings and they are not engaged in any other busi ness, profession or vocation except teaching Sanskrit in state Ayurvedic College, Bareil ly. In para 2, if the petition it is stated that the petitioners applied for the post of Lec turer in State Ayurvedic Colleges and were called for interview for the post of Lecturer but the nomenclature was changed to that of teacher although the duties remain the same. In para 27 it is alleged that since the petitioners have been the same functions and duty as is performed by the lecturers appointed for teaching Sanskrit, petitioners are entitled to get the same pay-scale. In para 32 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners are doing the same work as lecturers employed in State Ayurvedic College, Lucknow and as such the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale. Annexure 9-A is a time-table of Leeturer in Government Ayurvedic College, Lucknow for 1992-93. In para 34 of the petition it is stated that the petitioners are doing same and identical work as lecturer in Sanskrit and hence they are entitled to the same pay-scale. in para 36 it is stated that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is being violated. In Para 18 of the writ peti tion it is stated that the petitioners were not given the same pay scale. They filed a peti tion before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. The State Government did not file any counter affidavit before the Tribunal but still the Tribunal dismissed the claim peti tion ex pane on 16. 6. 93 vide Annexure 10 to the petition. Hence this petition. A counter affidavit has been filed and I have perused the same. As regards the allegations in para 18 of the petition that the petitioners are doing the same work as Lec turer the reply has been given in Para 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioners teach only one period of 45 minutes per day and do not do any administrative work. In Para 17 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners are only part-time employees and hence they cannot be given the pay scale of full time lecturer.
(3.) IN my opinion the relevant point for decision in this case is whether the petitioners are doing the same work as the Lecturer in State Ayurvedic College, Luck-now. Annexure 9-A of the writ petition is the time-table of Lecturer in State Ayur vedic College, Lucknow. A perusal of the same shows that the lecturer Shri M. C. Bhatt teaches two periods on Monday, one period on Tuesday, one period on Wednes day and one period on Saturday. Thus Shri M. C. Bhatt teaches only five periods in a week and he enjoys the pay scale of Rs. 2275-4100 as stated in Para 7 of the writ petition. So far as the petitioners are con cerned their time-table is given in Annexure 7 and 12 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 7 to the peti tion shows that petitioner No. 1 P. K. Upad hyaya as well as petitioner No. 3 Prem Chandra Sharma teach two periods of Sanskrit daily i. e. 12 periods in a week, where as a perusal of Annexure 12 shows that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Suman Misra teaches one period Sanskrit daily. This is also borne out from Annexure RA-A to the Rejoinder Affidavit. Thus there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioners are teaching much more than Shri M. C. Bhatt Lecturer in Government Ayurvedic College Lucknow and hence their claim for equal pay for equal work appears to be justified.;