JUDGMENT Madan D. Lokur, J.
1. The appellant, who appears in person, is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2001 whereby his writ petition, being CW No. 2632 of 2001 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The appellant had retired from service as a Reader in the University and was subsequently re-employed. According to him, he was granted an extension in service, but the learned Single Judge held that his was a case of re-employment in service. This issue was argued at length before a Division Bench and by an order dated 20th May, 2002, no infirmity was found in the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. This issue, therefore, stands concluded against the appellant
3. Another issue raised by the appellant was that with effect from 1st January, 1996 ho was entitled to the benefit of the recommend arums of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (for short the 5th CPC) in respect of the fixation of his salary. It was additionally contended (as is apparent from a later order of the Division Bench dated 27th May, 2002) that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period of his re-employment after 1st January, 19%.
4. Wo heard the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents on the second issue on 4th and 9th September, 2003 when judgment was reserved.
5. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 (for short the Rules) came into force from 1st January, 1996 and they seek to give effect to the recommendations of the 5th CPC Initially, in terms of Rule 2(2)(g), the Rules were not applicable to persons re-employed in Government service after retirement. Later an Office Memorandum dated 19th November, 1997 made the Rules applicable to such persons who were in re-employment on 1st January, 1996. There is no dispute between the parties before us that the appellant was governed by the Rules as made applicable by the OM dated 19th November, 1997.
6. Admittedly the appellant was drawing Rs. 4,950/- per month as salary immediately before 1st January, 1996. According to the appellant, his revised pay should have been fixed at Rs. 15,360/- per month on the basis of a table showing fixation of pay of Readers/Lecturers in Reader's Grade including pay on completion of five years after promotion/appointment in the grade. In this regard, the appellant placed reliance on a letter dated 20th August, 1999 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development to the Secretary, University Grants Commission. On the other hand, the respondents say that the pay of the appellant was fixed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules and so, where the existing scale was Rs. 4,950/- (as in the case of the appellant) it was revised to Rs. 13,260/-. Mercifully, the arithmetic involved in the calculations was not in dispute before us. The controversy centered on the applicability of the letter dated 20th August, 1999 to the ca.se of the appellant. If the letter dated 20th August, 1999 is applicable to the appellant, then his pay ought to be fixed at Rs. 15,360/- per month, otherwise it was correctly fixed at Rs. 13,260/- per month.
7. The opening sentence of the letter dated 20th August, 1999, which generated much before, reads as follows:
"I am directed to refer to this Department's letter of even number dated 24.3.1999 on the above subject and to say that the clarifications given at S. No. 4 regarding fixation of pay of Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have rendered 5 years or more of service as on 1.1.1996 may be read as under:
It is true, as contended by the appellant that the above quoted extract does not limit the benefit of the clarification following thereafter to regularly employed Readers/Lecturers, to the exclusion of re-employed Readers like the appellant. On this basis, the appellant submitted that since he had five years or more of service in the grade of Reader/Lecturer, his pay ought to have been fixed as per the clarification contained in the letter dated 20th August, 1999."
8. We are afraid it is not possible to read the letter dated 20th August, 1999 in isolation, at least insofar as the appellant is concerned. This is because as per the terms of his re-employment, the appellant was aware (as mentioned in the letter dated 27/28th May, 1996 read with the letter dated 23rd March, 1993) that his:
"..... re-employment is a fresh term of service and will have no relevance with his past service in the College, either in regard to salary, leave or any other benefits......."
9. In other words, the appellant's service prior to his re-employment was washed out for all matters relating, inter alia, to the fixation of his salary. Thus, on his re-employment, the appellant could not legitimately claim five years (or more) of past service to his credit so as to get the advantage conferred by the letter dated 20th August, 1999. For this reason, we uphold the view of the learned Single Judge that the appellant's pay was correctly fixed post 1st January, 1996.
10. We may note that if the contention advanced by the appellant is accepted, it will tantamount to treating his period of re-employment as one of extension in service--the very contention that was rejected by the Division Bench on 20th May, 2002.
11. The additional contention of the appellant that he is entitled to the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work is also liable to be rejected. The onus of justifying such a claim was on the appellant, [see State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 56]. Unfortunately, the appellant has not laid the factual foundation for making such a claim. There is nothing to show the nature of work done by the appellant, for example, the number of classes taken by him and their frequency, as compared to the number or frequency of classes taken by regular Readers/Lecturers. The appellant has also not indicated his functions, duties and responsibilities as compared to regularly employed Readers/ Lecturers.
12. We may, in this context, usefully recall what the Supreme Court recently said in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Balaram Sahu and Ors., :
"Though 'equal pay for equal work' is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as "equal pay for equal work" will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real substantial difference."
13. For the above reasons we regret our inability to subscribe to the views of the appellant The LPA is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.