ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 20-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
ANIL RATAN SARKAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2001 
[A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Lmv: 
Pay scale-Fixation of-Teachers of non-government colleges-Grant 
of scale of pay to non-teaching staff-Tenability of Appellants Laboratory C 
Assistants in non-government colleges-Subsequent re-designations as 
Laboratory Instructors-Such Laborat01y Instructors being treated as members 
of non-teaching staff-Claim for treatment as teaching staff and pay scale 
equivalent to that of Physical Instructors-Supreme Court upholding the 
claim by order dated 2617194-Pursuant to it, Circular dated 26112194 
issued by State Government wherein appellants though shown as teachers of D 
non-government colleges, were granted scale of pay applicable to Group B 
employees belonging to non-teaching staff-Contention that there existed 
two different grades· and scales of pay amongst Physical Instructors, one 
being qualified Physical Instructor and other being_ unqualified Physical 
instructor-Appel/ants being equated with under qualified Physical E 
Instructors-Legality of-Held, there is no documentary support as regards 
the existence of a separate grade of unqualified Physical Instructors-
Appe//ants having been conferred status as a teacher, cannot possibly be 
allowed a pay scale of a non-teaching post-Circular dated 26112194 arbitrary 
and contrary to the order of Supreme Court dated 26/7194-Appellants, held, 
are entitled to scale of pay in accordance with their status as teacher F 
equivalent to that of Physical Instructors. 
Ap.11ellants were Sdence Graduates working as Laboratory Assistants 
in non-government affiliated colleges. In addition to their nonilal duties, they 
also assisted teachers, helped the students in practical classes and also 
imparted instructions to them in practical classes. All Laboratory Assistants G 
were treated as teaching staff until the issuance of Government Order wherein 
Laboratory Assistants of non-government affiliated colleges were treated as 
members of the non-teaching staff. Representations were made against the 
said Government Order but in vain. Subsequently, the State Government re-
designated the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Instructors. However, H 
. 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A there was neither any conferment of status of teacher nor grant of any pay 
scale consistent with the teaching status. On the other hand, Graduate 
Laboratory Assistants working in Government Colleges were designated as 
Demonstrators and were accepted as members of teaching staff. 
Aggrieved, appellants moved the High Court for issuance of a writ to 
B treat the Graduate Laboratory Assistants as teaching staff and to give them 
a scale of pay equivalent to that of Physical Instructors. Single Judge of High 
Court allowed the said petition lvhich was confirmed by a Division Bench in 
appeal. The said Judgements were upheld by Supreme Court in ap1>eal by 
order dated 26/7 /94 with modification as to the payment of revised scale of 
c pay. 
In the meanwhile after the aforesaid order of the Single Judge of High 
Court a Government.Order was is~'Ued declaring the Graduate Laboratory 
Instructors as members of the teaching staff without granting any higher 
scale of pay. Subsequently, puq>0rtedly in terms of the aforesaid order of the 
D Supreme Court.dated 26/7/94 the State Government issued a circular dated 
26/12/94 wherein the appellants who were shou:n as teachers of non-
government colleges were in fact granted the scale of l>ay applicable only to 
Group B employees belonging to non-teaching staff v.iz. Rs. 1390-2970. 
The Circular dated 26/12/94 was challenged before High Co'.lrt and 
E Single Judge quashed the same. Aggrieved, the State Government 11referred 
an appeal which was allowed by the A11pellate Bench of High Court holding 
that the Government Order dated 26/12/94 could not be said to be arbitrary 
or contrary to the decision of Supre~e Court dated 26/7/94. Hence the 11rescnt 
appeals. 
F 
On behalf of the a11pellants, it was contented that though they 11ossessed 
similar qualifications, experience and were similarly circumstances, they 
were discriminated as against the Graduate Laboratory Assistants of 
government colleges; that the High Court fell into a great error in accepting 
the contention of having two classes of Physical Instruc~ors without any 
G factual or documentary support. 
On behalf of the State, it was cont

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.