Delhi High Court
Mr. Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan vs Jamia Millia Islamia And Anr. on 15 January, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1754/1997
% January 15, 2013
MR. MOHD. GHAYASUDDIN KHAN ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Safaya, Advocate.
Versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The subject writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is
a Lab Technician in the respondent No.1/Jamia Millia Islamia. The
petitioner is a Lab Technician working in the Department of Engineering
and Technology. The petitioner states that Lab Technicians in the
Department of Engineering and Technology are only getting the pay scale of
Rs. 1200-2040/- whereas Lab Technicians in the Department of Mass
Communication and Research Centre of the respondent No.1 University are
getting pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- as per AICTE norms and therefore the
petitioner should also be entitled to the same pay scale as those of a Lab
Technician in the Department of Mass Communication and Research Centre.
2. On behalf of the petitioner, attention of this Court is invited to
Annexure-C being office order of the respondent No.1 to show that with
respect to Computer Operator in the Department of Civil Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Technology pay scales have been given as per
AICTE norms though the respondent No.1 (a Central University) in the
counter affidavit has alleged that payment to all employees by the
respondent No.1-University is on the basis of UGC/Ministry of Human
Resources Development norms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
invited the attention of this Court to a chart of AICTE pay scales at page 27
of the paper book which contains estimates of staff salaries suggested by
AICTE, and parity with which is claimed by the petitioner.
3. The basis of claim 'equal pay for equal work' by the petitioner
who is a Lab Technician in the Department of Engineering and Technology
with equivalent pay scale for a Lab Technician in the Department of Mass
Communication and Research Centre of the respondent No.1 is liable to fail
for the following reasons:-
(i) The petitioner has not given anything in the writ petition as to
how qualification for a Lab Technician working in the Department of Mass
Communication and Research Centre is the same as that of Lab Technician
in the Department of Engineering and Technology.
(ii) The petitioner has also failed to give the scope of duties of a
Lab Technician in the Department of Mass Communication and Research
Centre of the respondent No.1 as compared to those of a Lab Technician in
the Department of Engineering and Technology for the same to be equated
in order to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
(iii) The petitioner claims that respondent No.1 must follow the staff
salaries prescribed for a Lab Technician at page 27/Annexure-I of the writ
petition, however, the petitioner has failed to file as to what are the
qualifications which are required for a Instructor/Lab Technician as
prescribed by AICTE in the estimates so given of staff salary, inasmuch as it
is only if the qualification of a Instructor/Lab Technician mentioned at page
27 of the writ petition are the same as a Lab Technician of a Department of
Engineering and Technology in the respondent No.1-University, only then
question will arise of parity of treatment.
4. I must also note that counsel for the petitioner has failed to
point out to me as to how the respondent No.1 is mandatorily bound by any
circulars of AICTE for giving the pay scale of an Instructor/Lab Technician
and on the contrary, the respondent No.1 with the counter affidavit has filed
a letter dated 8.12.1998 as Annexure-R5 of the AICTE that the
recommendations by the AICTE of pay scale is only for the teaching faculty,
Librarians and Physical Education Directors and not for the non-teaching
technical staff. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in the teaching faculty or a
Librarian or Physical Education Director. Therefore besides the fact that the
petitioner has failed to point out any mandatory requirements for following
of AICTE guidelines, he in any case cannot get the benefit for a non-
teaching technical staff and so clarified in Annexure R-5 to the counter
affidavit.
5. It may also be noted that respondent No.1 in its counter
affidavit has stated that respondent No.2/AICTE in its circulars have
specifically stated that what is given is only a model pay scale of a model
employer, however, the pay scales may automatically vary as per specific
conditions of each University/employer and therefore once the petitioner
fails to point out anything specific as to the mandatory requirement to
necessarily follow AICTE guidelines for pay scales, the petitioner cannot
claim benefit of AICTE circulars inasmuch as the same are only in the
nature of directory recommendations.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition,
which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
C.M. No.11994/1998 (under Section 151 CPC by petitioner)
7. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate independent proceedings, if available, in accordance with law.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 15, 2013
Ne
