GOPAL KRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

           GOPAL KRISHNA SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.                                 A
                                    v.
                  STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 16, 1992

   [AM. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]                           B

      Civil Services :

       Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of
Service) Act-Research Associates whether Research Assistants-Revised C
UGC scale of Rs.700-1601>-Whether Research Assistants/Associates eligible
by virlue of Nihal Singh's case-Supreme Coutt's direction.

      The respondent-University refused to grant Research Assistants/As-
sociates the scale of Rs.700-1600 recommended by the University Grants
Commission (UGC) with effect from 1st January, 1973, even though the          D
Sukhadia University, Rajasthan, (earlier known as University ofUdaipur)
implemented the UGC recommendations and granted the UGC scales in
the case of other members of the teaching staff. Hence this batch of Writ
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitntion.
                                                                              E
      The UGC's recommendation of the revision of pay scales of Univer-
sity and College teachers in Its report (1975-76) was approved by the
Government of India.

       The three pay scales approved for University and College teachers
were Rs. 700-1600 for Lecturers and Assistant Professors, Rs.1200-1900        F
for Readers and Rs.1500-2500 for Professors, replacing the then prevailing
pay scales of Rs.400-950, Rs.700-1250 and Rs. 1100-1600, respectively, with
effect from 1.1.1973.

      The University refused to grant the lowest pay scale of Rs.700-1600     G
to the Research Assistants.

      The petitioners-Research Assistants/Associates contended that the
benefit of the revised UGC scale was extended to Junior Lecturers who
were then in the scale of Rs.300-600; that the Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (!CAR) without making any distinction between academic, re- H
                                    605
    606                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A search and extension work in Agriculture Universities, extended the
    benefit of the revised UGC scales to Extention/Research Assistants, if they
    possessed the qualifications of Lecturers and were recognised as teachers
    under the University Statutes; that the benefit of the revised UGC scales
    was extended to the Junior Lecturers; that the post of Research Assistant
    in the University was equivalent to that of Junior Lecturer, being in the
B   same scale of Rs.300-600; that the Research Assistants of Agricultural
    Universities in the States of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh were
    placed in the scale of Rs.700-1600; that Research and Extention staff
    declared 'Teachers' under the University Statute wonld be eligible for the
    UGC revised pay scale; that they feel within the definition of 'Teacher' in
C   section 2(j) of the Udaipur University Act, 1962; that a person who was
    appointed by the University for conducting and guiding nosearch falls
    within the scope and ambit of the difinition of "Teacher'; that a Research
    Assistant employed for conducting and guiding research was to be
    regarded as belonging to the teaching faculty and would, therefore be
D   entitled to be placed in the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 with elf•.ct from
    1.1.73; that Research Associates were basically teachers as they impart
    instructions, and/or conduct and guide research/extension work, and
    hence their work was same as that of the Research Assistants who were
     placed in the UGC scale of Rs.700·1600 by virtue of !he decision in Nihal
    Singh's case and, therefore, under the equality clause of Article 14 they too
E   were entitled to the same pay scale of Rs.700-1600.

          The petitioners further submitted that one Dr. Nihal Singh in a Writ
    Petition No.39 of 1979 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the
    stand of the University in the High Court. The Single Judge of the High
F   Court ruled that Research Assistants fell within the extended meaning of
    'Lecturers' in clause (v) or Statute 47 and since that term was inclusive or
    'equivalent posts in Research and' Extensions', they were entitled to be
    placed in the scale of Rs. 700-1600, more so because they were 'teachers'
    as defined in section 2(j); and that the petitioner before him should be
    notionally placed in that scale with effect from 2. 7.74, the date from which
G   the term 'Lecturer' was substituted for the words 'Junion Lecturer'; that
    be was to be given monetary benefits from 1.9.76 from which date other
    Lecturers were given this benefit. When the matter was carried in appeal
    before a Division Bench of the High Court the Division Bench affirmed the
    view expressed by the Single Judge but modified the notional date from
H   2.7.74 to the date of actual appointment of the petitioner. The Special
             GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAIASTHAN                          607

Leave Petition filed against the said decision of the Division Bench was        A
summarily dismissed by this Court.

      The petitioner further submitted that 56 other writ petitions were
similarly disposed of by the High Conrt on the ratio of Nihal Singh's case.

      The Respondent-University contended that the decision in the case         B
of Nihal Singh did not operate as res judicata for the reason that this Court
had dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition in limine, which did not
preclude the University from contending that the view taken by the High
Court was erroneous; that Research Assistants who were equated with
Lecturers under the University Statutes were entitled to be placed in the       C
scale of Rs.650-960 and not Rs.700-1600; that under the UGC recommen-
dations only those Lecturers who were in the scale of Rs.400-950 were
placed in the scale of Rs.700·1600 and not those who were in the old scale
of Rs.300-600; that Research Assistants could never be equated with As·
sistant Professors who were in the scale of the Rs.700-1600; that many of
the Research Associates ,applied for selection to the post of Assistant         D
Professors but they were not .found suitable, and having failed to secure
entry through selection they were not seeking entry through a Court order,
taking advantage of the Court's order in Nihal Singh 's case.

      Disposing the petitions, this Conrt,
                                                                                E
      HELD: 1.01. So far as the Research Assistants are concerned, they
were in a regnlar pay scale, albeit of Rs.300- 600, before they came to be
awarded the revised scale of Rs.700- 1600. On the other hand Research
Associates employed on ICAR projects have always been on a consolidated
pay of Rs.1100 per month lnclnsive of allowance. [616-H)                        F
      1.02. There is no justification for treating Research Associates on
par with Research Assistants in the matter of grant of pay scale merely on
the ground that the educational qualification for appointment is identical.
                                                                     [617-CJ    G

      1.03. The educational qualifications and method of recruitment of
Research Associates is the same as for Research Assistants. Their job·
charts are identical. Like Research Assistants, Research Associates also
conduct and guide research work. Their other conditions of service are
also almost identical to those of Research Assistants. The difference is in     H
    608                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A two respects: (i) Research Assistants were on a pay scale of RsJOO· 600
    whereas Research Associates were placed on a consolidated pay of Rs.1100
    per month and (ii) while Research Assistants were in a regular cadre the
    same cannot be said about Research Associates whose appointments were
    adhoc and on a project/scheme. [617 F-G]

B         1.04. The University cannot be permitted to exploit the market condi·
    tion of large scale unemployment of educated youth and availability of
    surplus qualified person by offering tbem a paltry consolidated pay of
    Rs.1100 per month. It. was not fair on tbe part oftbe University to place the
    Research Associates on a consolidated salary of Rs.1100 per montb. (618-A]
c       1.05. The ends of justice would be met if Research Associates be
  allowed a consolidated salary to be worked out by placing them on a basic
  salaryof Rs.700 (which is the minimum oftbe scale of Rs.700-1600 allowed to
  Research Assistants) and allowing monetary benefits thereon in the form of
  such allowances allowed to a regular employee drawing a basic pay of Rs.700
D per month. Their appointment will howeverc~ntinue to be what it is. [618-E]
          1.06. The Research Associates will not belong to the cadre of Re·
    search Assistants merely because their consolidated salary is ordered to
    be worked out on the minimum of the time scale allowed to Research
    Assistants i.e. Rs.700-1600. Similarly they will not be equated witb Lec-
E   turers/ Assistant Professors in status and salary. They will continue to
    carry out the same duties and fuctions which they are carrying out today
    including assisting Assistant Professors. The benefit of Ibis revised con·
    solidated salary will be available to them from the date of their appoint·
    ment as Research Associates. (618 E·F]

F         1.07. So far as Research Assistants are concerned, their case will be
    governed by the earlier order of Ibis Court dated 25.4.85. The benefit of
    this Court's order will be available to all Research Assistants/Associates
    even if not joined as parties hereto. [618-G]

          1.08. The authorities are directed to calculate tbe difference payable
G
    to the employees within four months and pay tbe same to the employees,
    under a scheme, if any, as per employees' option, or if no scheme is
    prepared, in cash. The amount to be paid by way of difference in salary
    will be spread over year-wise for income tax pnrposes. [619-C]

H         1.09 The authorities may consider the feasibility of preparing a
        GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AHMADI, J.]              609

scheme whereunder such Research Associates can be absorbed in the           A
regular cadre of Research Assistants as and when vacancies arise. Since
the educational requirements, process of selection and job-charges are
almost identical such a scheme can be of mutual benefit to the employees
as well as the University, the employees getting security of tenure and
University getting experienced hands. [619-E)
                                                                            B
      Dr. Nihal Singh's case disposed of by Supreme Court on 6.9.1982;
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others,
Group of Writ Petitions disposed of by Supreme Court on 25.4.1985; Smt.
Gita Bali & Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, W.P. No. 132 of 1987
disposed of by Supreme Court on 29.7.1987, referred to.                     c
        ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 16309-16376 of
1984.

        {Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
                                                                            D
                  WITH

        Writ Petition No. 5.63 of 1989.

        Indra Makwana for the Petitioners.
                                                                            E
     K.T.S. Tulsi, Addi. Solicitor Genera:, B. Dutta, A.P. Dhamija, S.
Atreya, Sushi! Kr.Jain, A.K. Srivastava, C.V.S. Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, VJ.
Francis aad K.R.R. Pillai {N.P.) for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                            F
      AHMADI, J. This batch of Writ Petitions brought under Article 32 of
the Constitution arises on account of the respondent University's refusal to
grant Research Assistants/Associates the scale of Rs.700-1600 recom-
mended by the University Grants Commission (UGC) with effect from !st
January, 1973, even though the University, namely, the Sukhadia University,
Rajasthan, (earlier known as University of Udaipur) has implemented the G
UGC recommendations and granted the UGC scales in the case of other
members of the teaching staff. It may be noticed that the UGC in its report
(1975-76) recommended upward revision of pay scales of University and
College teachers, which recommendation came to be approved by the overn-
ment of India. According to the said recommendation three pay scales were   H
     610                   >UPREME COURT REPORTS[l992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A approved for University and College teacher•, these being Rs.700-1600 for
     Lecturers and Assistant Professors, Rs.1200-1900 for Readers and Rs.1500-
     2500 for Professors replacing the then prevalmg pay scales of Rs.400-950,
     Rs.700-1250 and Rs.1100-1600, respectively, with effect from 1.1.73. Re-
     search Assistants who claim to belong to the teaching faculty claimed the
     lowest pay scale of Rs.700-1600 which the University had refuse.d to grant
.B   notwithstanding a host of representations. They further contended that the
     benefit of the revised U GC scale of Rs. 700-1600 was also extended to Junior
     Lecturers wha were then in the scale of Rs.300-600. The Indian Council of
     Agriculture Research (!CAR) had also clarified in its communication date
     June 26/July 1, 1977, that it makes no distinction between academic, research
c    and extension work in Agricultural Universities and had extended the benefit
     of the revised UGC scales to Extention/Research Assistants also if they
     possessed the qualifications of Lecturer and were recognised as teachers
     under the University Statutes. The Vice-Chancellor of the respondent
     University baa also written a letter dated 14/15th December, 1976 to the
D    Education Commissioner of the State Government to extend the benefit of
     the revised UGC scales to Junior Lecturers/Research Assistants/Extention
     Assistants as they beloged to the teacher's category. While the claim was
     approved. in the case of Junior Lecturers, it came to be spurned in the case of
     Research Assistants even though Research Assistants of Agricultural
     Universities in the States of Haryana (Hissar), Punjab (Ludhiana) and
E    Himachal Pradesh were placed in the scale of Rs.700-1600. The petitioners
     also relied on a letter dated 17.12.77 of the Under Secretary (Education),
     I CAR addressed to the Duputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan,
     Agriculture (Gr.II) Department, Jaipur, wherein it is stated that Research
     and Extention staff declared 'Teachers' under the University Statute would
     be eligible for the UGC revised pay scale. The petitioners further point out
F
     that the post of Research Assistant in the University was equivalent to that of
     Junior Lecturer, being in.the same scale ofRs.300-600 and when by Notifica-
     tion dated 2.7.74, Statute 47(1) come to be amended and the expression
      'Junior Lecturer' in clause (v) thereof came to be substituted by the expres-
      sion 'Lecturer', persons holding equivalent posts in the same pay scale were
G    given the same nomenclature by the Registrar's Subsequent notification
      dated 7.9.77. This was so because, contend the petitioners, they fell within the
      definition of 'Teacher' in section '.?G) of the Udaipur University Act, 1962
     which runs as under: ·

 H            "G). 'Teacher' means a person appointed or recognised by
      GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AHMADI, J.]                   611

        the university for the purpose of instruction or conducting            A
        and guiding research or extention programmes and in-
        cludes a person who may be declared by the statute to be
                  11
        a teacher.

      The petitioners, therefore, contend that a person who is appointed       B
by ihe University for conducting and guiding research falls within the scope
and ambit of the above definition and hence there is no room for any doubt
that a Research Assistant employed for conducting and guiding research
has to be regarded as belonging to the teaching faculty and would, there-
fore, be entitled to be placed in the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect
from 1.1.73. Despite this clear position the petitioners contend that the      C
University acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner in deny-
ing to the Research Assistants their legitimate due of being placed in the
revised UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 from 1.1.73.

      The petitioners point out that this stand of the University was ques- D
tioned by one Dr. Nihal Singh in a Writ Petition No.39 of 1979 under
Article 226 of the Constitution in the Rajasthan High Court. It was heard
and disposed of on 22.4.81 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court,
who, on a consideration of the material placed before him, ruled that
Research Assistants fell within the extended meaning of 'Lecturers' in
clause (v) of Statute 47 and since that term was inclusive of 'equivalent E
posts in Research and Extentions', they were entitled to be placed in the
scale of Rs.700-1600, more so because they .vere 'teachers' as defined in
section 2G) extracted earlier. The learned Judge held that the petitioner
before him should be notionally placed in that scale with effect from 2.7.74,
the date from which the term 'Lecturer' was substituted for the words p
'Junior Lecturer'. He was given monetary benefits from 1.9.76 from which
date other Lecturers were given this benefit. The State of Rajasthan carried
the matter in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The
Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 26.10.81 afirmed the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge but modified the notional date from
2.7.74 to the date of actual appointment of the petitioner. The Special G
Leave Petition filed against the said decision of the Division Bench was
summarily dismissed by this Court on 6.9.82. Thus ended the litigation com-
menced by Dr. Nihal Singh. It also appears that 56 other Writ Petitions were
similarly disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 16.8.82 and appeals taken
to the Division Bench were dismissed of on the ratio of Nihal Singh 's case.  H
    612                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992j SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A          The grievance of the petitioners is that even after this cycle of
    litigation in which it was finally decided that Research Assistants were
    entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs.700-1600, the respondents continued
    to vex them by refusing to apply the ratio of that judgment to their case
    which had forced them to move this court for redress. In these petitions
    some others claiming to be similarly placed have sought implcadment by
B   separate interim applications which we hereby allow.

         On behalf of the University a counter has been filed contending that
  the decision in the case of Nihal Singh .cannot operate an res judicata for
  the reason that this Court had dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition
C in limini, which does not preclude the University from contending that the
  view taken by the Rajasthan High Court is erroneous. It is pointed out that
  on 1.1.73 under Statute 47 teachers were classified as (i) Professor (ii)
  Reader (iii) Lecturer and (iv) Junior Lecturer. Statute 47 was amended
  with effect from 2.7.74 by merging Junior Lecturers into the category of
D Lecturers. Thereafter, with effect from 18.4.78, Statutes 47 and 49 were
  amended and Research Assistants. Extention Assistants, Junior Training
  Officers and Junior Specialists were included in the definition of 'Teachers'
  within the meaning of that expression in section 2G). The pay scales of the
  teaching staff was thus: (i) Professor - Rs.1100-1600. (ii) Associate Profes-
  sor - Rs.700-1250 (iii) Assistant Professor - Rs.400-950 and (iv) Lecturerr
E Rs.300-600. It is further clarified that teachers who were designated ·as
  Lecturers on 2.7.74 were re-designated as Assistant Professors and those
  who were formerly Junior Lecturers were redesignated as Lecturers. After
   the changes brought about from 18.4.78 the pay scales were altered as : (i)
   Professor - Rs.1500-2500 (ii) Associate Professor - Rs.1200-1900 (iii) As-
F sistant Professor - Rs.700-1600 and (iv) Lecturer - Rs.650-960. These pay
   scales were brought into effect from 1.9.76. It is, therefore, contended that
   Research Assistants who were equated with Lecturers under the University
   Statutes were entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs.650-%0 and not
   Rs.700-1600. Under the UGC recommendations only those Lecturers who
   were in the scale of Rs.400-950 were placed in the scale of Rs.700-1600
G and not those who were in the old scale of Rs.300-600 and earlier belonged
   to the category of Junior Lecturers. It is, therefore, submitted that this
   important aspect was totally overlooked by the Court in Nihal Singh's case.

          It is further averred on behalf of the University that the essential
H qualification under UGC for the post of Assistant Professor (Rs.700-1600)
      GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAIASTHAN [AHMADI, J.]                      613

is a Doctor's degree whereas for Research Assistant/Lecturer (Rs.650-960) A
it is only a Bachelor's degree (second class) followed by a good second
class Master's degree. Secondly the manner of recruitment is not identical.
In the case of Assistant Professors, their recruitment is governed by the
provisions of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special
Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (Act 18 of 1974) whereas recruitment in
the cadre of Research Assistants is governed by Statute 49 through selec-
                                                                               B
tion by a committee, subject to approval by the Vice-Chancellor. Thirdly
for Assistant Professors a teaching load of 21 hours is prescribed whereas
no such teaching load is prescribed for Research Assistants. That is be-
cause the essential work of Research Assistants comprises compilation of
data of field experiments, laboratory work to be conducted under the c
directions of Assistant Professors and such other work as may be assigned
by the in-charge of the laboratory. Thus there is hardly any teaching work
to be done by Research Assistants. Lastly, it is pointed out that an Assistant
Professor is qualified to be appointed a guide for a Ph.D. student whereas
a Research Assistant is not so qualified. From these distinguishing features D
it is contended that Research Assistants can never be equated with Assis-
tant Professors who are in the scale of Rs.700-1600. Since these vital
distinguishing features were not placed before the Court in Nihal Singh's
case, it erroneously accepted the untenable claim of Nihal Singh which the
University was compelled to implement as a court directive.
                                                                                  E
      In the supplementary affidavit it is pointed out that after Writ Peti-
tion Nos.9555/83 and 9621-62/83 were admitted on 2.2.1984, Writ
Petitioners of Writ Petition Nos.485-576/84 who are Research Associates
employed on a consolidated salary and not Research Assistants moved the
Court on the plea that they were performing the same duties as Research           F
Assistants and were entitled to similar treatment. It is pointed out that
while the Writ Petitioners of Writ Petition Nos.9555/83 and 9621-62/83 did
not choose to file a rejoinder to the University's counter' affidavit, the Writ
Petitioners of Writ Petitions Nos.485-576/84 have filed a rejoinder as if
Research Associates and Research ,\ssistants were interchangeable terms.
It is pointed out that Research Associates were introduced under Resolu- G
tion No.153 of 3.12.81 on a consolidated salary of Rs.950 plus allowance of
Rs.150 making a total of Rs.1100 on the guidelines supplied by !CAR.
These projects sponsored by ICAR are of fixed duration. It is further
contended that many of the Reseach Associates had applied for selection
to the post of Assistant Professors but they were not found suitable. Having H
    614                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   failed to secure entry thrnugh sekction they are now seeking entry through
    a Court order by equating themselves with. Research Assistants with a view
    to taking-advantage of the Court's order in Nihal Singh's case. They are
    neither 'Teachers' under Section 2G) nor are they Research Assistants and,
    therefore, they cannot by any stretch of imagination be entitled to a scale
    of Rs.700-1600.
B
           In the Rejoinder to the counter affidavit it is contended that Re-
    search Associates are basically teachers as they impart instructions, and/or
    conduct and guide research/extention work, (a fact denied in the counter
    affidavit) and hence they do the same work as is done by Research
C   assistants who are placed in the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 by virtue of the
    decision in Niha/'s Singh 's case and, therefore, under the equality clause of
    Article 14 they too are entitled to the same pay scale of Rs.700- 1600. The
    designation of Research Associates was brought into existence under the
    Executive Committee's Resolution No.153 dated 3.12.81. They contend that
D   the respondent University is perhaps the only University in the country
    which continued with the four-tier system notwithstanding the three-tier
    system recommended by the UGC and in order to avoid granting the UGC
    pay scale a new nomenclature of Research Associates was invented to
    deprive the teachers of their legitimate dues. They contend that the !CAR
    releases funds for lecturers, s_ince it does not recognise Research Asso-
E   ciates, but the University utilises the funds of Research Associates by
    paying a consolidated salary cif Rs.1100 per month. It is, therefore, con-
    tended that the University was not justified in denying to the Research
    Associates, who are doing work akin to Research Assistants, the UGC pay
    scale of lecturer, i.e. Rs.700-1600.
F
           We have set out the pleadings in extenso to highlight the rival view
    points, more particularly because it has been the grievance of the respon-
    dents that certain vital facts were not placed before the Rajasthan High
    Court when it decided the case of Niha/ Singh and certain other Writ
    Petitions against which a two-Judge Bench of this Court refused to grant
G   leave to appeal. A similar order also came to be passed by a three-Judge
    Bench of this Court on 25.4.85 in a group of Writ Petitions (Bindeshwari
    Prarnd Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others) allowing Research
    Assistants a scale of Rs.700-1600. This was followed by a "decision of a
    two-Judge Bench in Writ Petition No.132 of 1987 (Smt. Gita Bali & Others
H   v. State of Ra1astha11 & Others) dated 29.7.87 granting the pay scale of
     GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AHMADI, J.]                   615

Rs.700-1600 to Research Assistants. It may here be mentioned that before A
the three-Judge Bench it was submitted that the decision of the Rajasthan
High Court was likely to create difficulties since Lecturers and Research
Assistants who form distinct cadres would have to be amalgamated as they
were placed in the same scale of Rs.700-1600. This Court made the position
clear to avoid future complications in. the following words:
                                                                                B
        "........ the earlier judgment bad nothing to do with amal-
        gamation of cadres, a common seniority list or a feeder
        source for further promotions. Research Assistants and
        Lecturers are separate and distinct cadres. The only thing
        common is the scale. However in order to obviate any                    c
        future difficulty in this behalf, we direct that Research
        Assistants and Lecturers will form separate cadres and tP,ey
        need not be brought on a common seniority list only on the
        ground that both enjoy the same pay scale as recommended
        by the University Grants Commission. This wotild protect
        the University in respect of any of its apprehensions."
                                                                                D

The rule was made absolute limited to pay scale only leaving the other ·
prayers open to be dealt with in appropriate proceedings. It was specifically
stated that 'the case ·of Research Associates will be taken after vacation'.
                                                                                E
      What emerges from-the above resume is clear. Since the introduction
of the three-tier pay scales by the UGC, Research Assistants of the
respondent University were clamouring for being equated with Lecturers
in the matter of pay scale. The University was resisting their effort as it
was of the opinion that they were not entitled to be placed in that category. F
Nihal Singh, therefore, carried the matter to court followed by others. We
have adverted to the decisions rendered .in this behalf and the two speaking
judgments of this Court have clearly laid down that Research Assistants
are entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs.700-1600. The three-Judge
Bench of this Court did realise that equation in the matter of pay scale
between Research Assistants and Lecturers was likely to lead to certain G
complications and; therefore, while giving the scale of Rs.700-1600 to
Research Assistants it clarified that merely because Research Assistants
are placed in the same pay scale as Lecturers, they will not by that fact
alone be entitled to common seniority and promotional benefits in the
hierarchy since both will be separate and distinct cadres and the only thing H
    616                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A common amongst them would be the pay scale. It is thus clear that after
    an elaborate hearing this Court placed Research Assistants in the pay scale
    of Rs.700- 1600.

        The Executive Committee of the University at its meeting held on
  3.12.81 resolved that since the work in the !CAR Research Projects was
B suffering, Research Associates be appointed as per !CAR guidelines on a
  fixed salary of Rs.1100 (Salary Rs.950 + Rs.150 allowance) against the
  posts of Lecturers. The advertisement dated 6.3.84 inviting applications for
  Assistant Professors and Senior Research Associates shows that in the case
  of the former the pay stated was Rs. 700 per month + D .A. as per U GC
C whereas in the case of the latter the pay scale mentioned was Rs.860-1550
  plus allowances as per rules, which is indicative of the distinction between
  UGC scales and scales according to State or University rules. It is also
  clear that apart from the educational requirement the incumbent seeking
  appointment as Senior Research Associate must have atleast experience of
  one year as Research Associate. From this it was submitted that the post
D of Senior Research Associate was above the Research Associate and the
  pay of both was not governed under the UGC recommendations. Besides,
  it was pointed out that Research Associates were supposed to assist
  Assistant Professors who were in the scale of Rs.700-1600 and hence by no
  stretch of imagination can they be justified in claiming the same scale. In
E the Revised General Guidelines for the implementation of !CAR spon-
  sored Research Schemes, para U provides that Research Associates shall
  draw a consolidated salary ranging betwee~ Rs.700 and Rs.1100 per month
  to be decided by the authority on the basis of qualification and experience
  of the candidate and nature of work involved. Therefore, even according
  to the revised !CAR guidelines Research Associates were not to be placed
F in the U GC pay scale. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out
  that Research Associates fell within the meaning of 'Teachers' and since
  they also imparted instructions they belonged to the teaching faculty like
  Research Assistants and were, therefore, entitled to the same salary. The
  definition of 'Teacher' in Section 2(viii) of the Rajasthan Universities
G Teachers & Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 1976
  (Act 24 of 1976) cannot be of mnch assistance for placement in UGC scale.
  So far as Research Assistants are concerned, it is clear that they were in a ,
  regular pay scale, albeit of Rs.300-600, before they came to be awarded the
  revised scale of Rs.11Jl11-:l600. On the other hand Research Associates
H employed on !CAR projects have always been on a consolidated pay of
      GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RATASTHAN (AHMADI, l.J                        617

Rs.1100 per month inclusive of allowance. Feeling apprehensive of Re-                A
search Associates being awarded the higher pay of Rs. 700-1600 on the
footing that they were discharging similar functions, counsel for the respon-
dents made both to contend, notwithstanding -the decisions rendered in the
case of Research Assistants, that the courts had committed an e•ror in
placing them in the scale of Rs. 700-1600. Such a proposition may at first
blush sound to be unsusual but it is not entirely so. Even the three-Judge
                                                                                     B
Bench had realised that the parity was likely to create complications and
thought it wise to clarify that the equation is limited to pay scale and
nothing more. It is another matter that we donot propose to reopen the
same on merits since the issue regarding the pay scale of Research Assio-
tants has crystalised. But at the same time we donot see any justification           c
for treating Research Associates on par with Research Assistants in the
matter of grant of pay scale merely on the ground that the educational
qualification for appointment is identical. As we have pointed out earlier
that Research Assistants belonged to a regulai· cadre and were fixed in a
time scale unlike Research Associates who were appointed on I CAR
projects on adhoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.1100 per month. The              D
!CAR guidelines also clarify that their appointments will not be in the
nature of regnlar employment but will be restricted for the duration of the
project/scheme. While that may be true, we cannot lose sight of the fact
that the University created the designation of Research Associate since it
was contesting the action initiated by Dr. Nihal Singh claiming parity in            E
pay scale for Research Assistants with lecturers-Assistant Professors. The
educational qualifications and method of recruitment of Research As-
sociates is the same as for Research Assistants as is evident from Resolu-
tion No.153. Their job-charts are identical. Like Research Assistants,
Research Associates also conduct and guide research work. Their work is
essentially in the fields but they also impart instructions in classes as is clear   F
from Annexure CC to Harendra Singh Cheema's affidavit in Writ Petitions
Nos.16301- 16376 of 1984. Their other conditions of service are also almost
identical to those to Research Assistants. The difference is in two respects:
(i) Research Assistants were on a pay scale of Rs.300-600 whereas Re-
search Associates were placed on a consolidated pay of Rs.1100 per month             G
and (ii) while Research Assistants were in a regular cadre the same cannot
be said about Research Associates whose appointments were adhoc and
on a project/scheme. Except for these two broad distinctions we find on
job e~aluation that the work done by Research Asso..,iates is more or less
identical to the work done by Research Assistants. On the principle of               H
    618                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A equal pay for equal work, counsel for the Research Associates rightly
  contends, that the University cannot be permitted to exploit the market
  condition of large scale unemployement of educated youth and availability
  of surplus qualified persons by offering them a paltry consolidated pay of
  Rs.1100 per' month. We think, the circumstances in which the University
  created the posts of Research Associates by Resolution No.153 dated
B 3.1.1981 with the same educational qualificatiops, selection process, job-
  chart, etc., as in the case of Research Assistants, lends support to the
  submission that· this was done to avoid equation claims that may arise if
  the contention of Dr. Nihal Singh were to be upheld by this Court also in
  the Special Leave Petition pending before it. We are, therefore, of the view
C that it was not fair on the part of the University to place them on a
  consolidated salary of Rs.1,100 per month on the aforementioned two
  distinguishing features. At the same time we are clear that they cannot
  claim to be placed on a scale of pay since they were never on a time scale
  like their colleagues i.e. Research Assistants.

D         In view of the above discussion we think the ends of justice would be
    met if we order that Research Associates be allowed a consolidated salary
    to be worked out by placing them on a basic salary of Rs.700 (which is the
    minimum of the scale of Rs.700- 1600 allowed to Research Assistants) and
    allowing monetary benefits thereon in the form of such allowances allowed
E   to a regular employee drawing a basic pay of Rs.700 per month. Their
    appointment will however continue to be what it is and they will not belong
    to the cadre of Research Assistants merely because their consolidated
    salary is ordered to be worked out on the minimum of the time scale
    allowed to Research Assistants i.e. Rs.700-1600. Similarly they will not be
    equated with Lecturers/Assistant Professors in status and salary. They will
F
    continue to carry out the same duties and functions which they are carrying
    out today including assisting Assistant Professors. Their demand for place-
    ment in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 is rejected. The benefit of this revised
    consolidated salary will be available to them from the date of their appoint-
     ment as Research Associates. So far as Research Assistants are concerned,
G    their case will be governed by the earlier order of this Court dated 25.4.85.
     We need hardly clarify that the benefit of this Court's order will be
     available to all Research Assistants/Associates even if not joined as parties
     hereto.

H          It was contended by the learned counsel for the University that such
      GOPAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [AHMADI, J.]                  619

an order will throw a heavy financial bruden on the University. That may A
be so but that is no ground to deny to the employees what is due to them
in law. In fact the employees can make a grievance that what was due to
them had been illegally withheld and hence the University should be
directed to pay the difference with interest. However, we would leave it to
the authorities to work out a scheme with sufficient incentives e.g. deposit-
ing the arrears (difference) in Provident Fund or the like and giving an
                                                                              B
option to the employees to avail of that benefit if they so desire. That
should however be done not later than three months. We also direct the
authorities to calculate the difference payable to the employees within four
months from today and pay the same to the employees, under a scheme, if
any, as per employees' option, or if no scheme is prepared, in cash. The C
amount to be paid by way of difference in· salary will be spread over
year-wise for income-tax purposes.

       Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases we make
no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each Writ
Petition.                                                                     D
       Before we part we must mention that counsel for the petitioners had
urged that even though the petitioners have put in long years as Research
Associates they are still treated as adhoc employees with no security of
tenure. We would leave it to the authorities to consider the feasibility of E
preparing a scheme whereunder .such Research Assosciates can be ab-
sorbed in the regular cadre of Reaserch Assistants as and when :vacancies
arise. Since the educational requireµients, process of selection and job-
charts are almost identical such a scheme can be of mutual benefit to the
employees as well as the Uniyersity, the employees getting security of
tenure and University getting experienced hands. We would expect the F
University to examine the feasibility of preparing such a scheme at an early
date.

V.P.R.                                               Petitions disposed of.