APANGSHU MOHAN LODH AND ORS. versus STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 30-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

APANGSHU MOHAN LODH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE .OF TRIPURA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 30, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Equal pay for equal work-Practising advocates-Engaged as part-time 
lecturers-Claim for proportionate equal pay for equal work-Held, the C 
question of determining the pay scale of a person serving an institute arises 
only in the event he is appointed in terms of the statute operating in the field 
and not by reason of the terms and conditions of a contract entered into by 
and between him and the State-Advocate-Lecturers were engaged on purely 
contractual basis-They could not be granted the minimum scale of pay of D 
Assistant Professors as they were not full time employees-The post of part-
time lecturer is not contemplated as a cadre post under the Rules-The 
claimants being not in the regular employment, principles of service 
jurisprudence cannot be extended to an advocate who is acting as a part-time 
lecturer-Contract employment. 
Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR (1994) SC 265, 
held in applicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4086-4087 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.97 of the Gauhati High Court 
at Agartala Bench in W.A. No. 31 and C.M. (W.A.) No. 272 of 1997. 
Sanjay Parikh and A.N. Singh for the Appellants. 
E 
F 
Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Mona and B. Aggarwalla for the Respondents. 
·G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellants herein belong to legal profession and are practising 
advocates. They were appointed as Part-Time Lecturers in M.B.B. College, 
39 
H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Agartala on a fixed pay. The appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of 
the Constitution before the Gauthati High C i;urt, Agartala Bench, for issuance 
of a writ or in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to accord unto 
them proportionate equal pay for equal work, for working as Part-Time 
Lecturers. A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the plea of the 
appellants herein and allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the respondent-State 
B of Tripura preferred a Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the 
High Court. There was a delay of 460 days in filing the appeal and, therefore, 
the State ofTripura filed an application for condonation of delay. The Division 
Bench of the Gauhati High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and 
upon hearing the parties allowed the same. Consequently the judgment and 
C order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. Aggrieved, the appellants are 
in appeal before us. 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that since filing of 
Letters Patent ~ppeal was grossly delayed and there being no explanation for 
condonation of delay, the High Court ought not to have condoned the same. 
D We do not find· any merit in this submission. The division Bench found that 
the State had made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This power 
of condonation is discretionary and has to be liberally construed. 
Learned counsel then urged that the appellants being Part-Time Lecturers 
were entitled to proportionate increase in the remuneration on the principle 
E of parity in pay. Before the High Court, no such plea was taken. The learned 
Single judge of the High Court had applied the principle of equal pay for 
equal work as contra distinguished from the principle of parity in pay and in 
giving the directions strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Vijay 
Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR (1994) SC 265. 
F 
Mr. San jay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants 
categorically stated that the appellants being Part-Time Lecturers, the principle 
of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the instant case. The learned 
counsel fairly and candidly stated that the appellants had not and could not 
have prayed for regularization of job not could invoke the provisions of the 
G Minimum Wages Act. 
H 
The Division Bench in its impugned judgment distinguished the decision 
of this Court rendered in Vijay Kumar (supra) holding, inter alia, that the 
principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable in the present 
case as the appellants did not pray for their absorptions as a regular teacher. 
.. 
' 
APANGSHUMOHANLODHv. STATEOFTRIPURA 
41 
It is true that the respondents did not file any counter affidavit before A A 
the High Court but a counter affidavit h

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