V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) All the five writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy relates with regard to equal pay for equal work.
(2.) Four of the petitioners are Lecturers and one petitioner is Librarian in Hitkari Co-operative Women's College of Education which is run and managed by Hitkari Vidhyalaya Sahkari Shiksha Samiti Limited, Kota (Co-operative Society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act). The said institution is imparting education of B.Ed. The main grievance raised is that another B.Ed. College at Kota namely JLN T.T. College, Kota is making the payment of salary as prescribed by Ord. 66 read with Section 29 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1966 while the respondents are not making the payment of the pay scales as were modified w.e.f. 1.9.1986. The office order of the University of Rajasthan dated 8.4.1987 which is applicable to the University employees had also been relied. In the ordinance of 1966 university has recommended the minimum pay scale for teachers in affiliated colleges and in para C for teachers in colleges and faculty of B.Ed. including Shiksha Shastri classes lecturer of Post Graduate and degree department have been specified. Section 29 of the University Act provides that each college shall specify to the University the number of qualification of its teaching staff of each subject, which are educated and in accordance with the rules prescribed by the University and their emoluments and conditions of service are as such approved by the University. It is-net in dispute that the college of the respondent is affiliated college, but still the emoluments as prescribed under Ordinance 66 have not been given. Ordinance 66 has recommended the pay scales. It has not come on record as to whether the emoluments and conditions of service of the petitioners have been approved by the University or not. Without going to any other question, the petitioners should have assailed the action of the respondents alleging the same in violation of the provisions of Section 29 of the University Act. Under Sub-Section (1) of the said Section it is the college which has to specify the University about the employments of teaching staff and that emoluments should be such as may be approved by the University.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that the writ against a co-operative society is not maintainable and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and that equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because that requires determination of the dispute and complicated questions of fact. These issues which have been raised as preliminary objections are not being considered for the simple reason because under section 29 of the University Act, the petitioner have to take approval and specify the University with regard to emoluments of. teaching staff. Since, this basic point as to whether the emoluments were approved or not have not been brought on record, I consider it appropriate that the petitioners may submit a representation to the University within a period of 15 days from today with reference to the provisions of Section 29 of the University Act. The University will examine the matter and if there is any violation would take action in accordance with law. The representation shall be decided by the Vice Chancellor, within a period of three months from the date of its submission. All the above writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations. Writ petitions Disposed of With Above Directions.;