PROF. C.D TASE versus UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 16-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
PROF. C.D TASE 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 1989 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI AND 
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Labour and Services: Lecturers-Pay scales-Implementation of 
Third Pay Commission's recommendations-Entitlement to placement 
in the pay scale on the basis of recommendations of the earlier report 
C that was accepted by Government-Valid and protected-Fixation in 
..Jhe revised scale giving effect to the Third Pay ·commission's recom-
mendations to take into account such placement before fixation-
_ 
Benefit of such placement cannot be denied. 
The appellant joined as a Lecturer in 1971, In a College 01f1iliated 
D 
to Pone University in the scale of Rs.300-600 prescribed by the 
University Grants Commission. Earlier, in 1967 the State Gov•ernment 
accepted in principle the Government of India Scheme based on recom-
mendations of the University Grants Commission for improvement of 
pay-scales of all university and college teachers, and Issued directions to -i" 
all universities in the State. The Universities in tum directed all the 
E 
affiliated colleges accordingly. The new scales were Rs.30~-25-600 
(Lecturers, Junior Scale), Rs.400-30-640-40-800 (Lecturers, Senior 
Scale) and Rs. 700-40-UOO (Senior Lecturers) and were to take effect 
from l.4.1966. The number of Senior Lecturers and Lecture1rs (Sr. 
Scale) was not to exceed 1/4 of the total strength of Lecturers. 
F 
Again, in 1978, it was decided to implement the next repoirt, viz~· -.,. 
the Third Pay Commissioner's report which prescribed a running scale ' 
of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from l.l.1973. All the Universiti1's in the 
State were directed to implement the same. A question was raised as to 
whether placement of teachers already made after Ll.1973 in the pre-
1973 scales would be valid on the implementation of the revised scale 
G 
with effect from l.l.1973. The Government clarified that such•· place-
ment would be valid and protected, subject to the prescrih<od condi-
tions. However, the Pone University directed the College Managements ~ 
to ignore the pay-scales prescribed by the earlier Pay Commission in 
case of teachers who became entitled to the higher scale after I.I. 73. 
Against this, the appellant and two others approached the High Court 
H by way of a Writ Petition. However, the High Court felt that th•ire was 
736 
C.D. TASE v. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY 
737 
-----{ 
nothing very inequitable about the decision taken by the University 
A 
authorities and declined to interfere. 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the said judgment of the 
High Court. 
Before the Court, the appellant argued that the High Court failed 
B 
to appreciate the fact that the decision of the University authorities was 
highly prejudicial to the appellant and others who were similarly 
situated, as it resulted in substantial monetary loss. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The decision of the university not only appears to be 
C 
'inequitable' but also discriminatory inasmuch as it sought to treat 
equals as unequals by protecting those who had secured the placement 
and denying the same to others whose names the college managements 
had failed to forward in good time. The appellant was entitled to place-
ment in the higher scale of Rs. 700-l l 00 before being brought over to the o 
revised scale of Rs. 700-1600. (742B] 
2. The Lecturers whose names were recommended for placement 
.+-
in the higher scale before October 4, 1975 were entitled to such place-
, 
ment before being brought over to the revised scale ofRs.700-1600. The 
appellant was entitled to placement in.the higher scale of Rs.700-1600 
E 
w.e.f. Julie 15, 1975. The college authorities failed, for.no fault of the 
appellant and his companions, to forward their names to the University 
in the prescribed proforma for reasons best known to them. To deny the 
benefit to which the appellant and his companions were entitled on 
~ account of the lapse on the part of the college authorities would be 
_.,.--r highly unfair and unjust. The High Court, however took the view that F 
there was 'nothing very inequitable' about the decision of the University 
to deny such placement to the appellant and his companions, but it is 
obvious that if they had been granted placement on the due dates they 
would have been entitled to higher salary and allowances related to 
basic salary e.g. dearness allowance which is a certain percentage of 
basic salary, would have gone up. (74IF-H; 742A] 

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