If the above request is possible, kindly accord permission to
award the Pay Scale of Rs.1010-1800, Rs.1875-2750 and Rs.3550-
7150 in the revised pay scales of 1986, 1993 and 1999 respectively,
to the Lab. Attendants working in our University, as per the Orders
of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh."
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
6. In response to the letter dated 08.06.2015, addressed by the
respondent-University, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 07.12.2015
stating as follows:
8. Based on the above, it is clear that the Lab Attendants of
Osmania University are getting the same scales as Lab Attenders
of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Only the Lab
Attendants of Oil Technology Research Institute Ananthapur, are
kept at a separate footing by the PRC due to their different and
higher qualifications, experience required and duties also such as
preparation of Laboratory reagents etc. Moreover, granting any
parity in Pay-Scales is a subject matter of the PRC.
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
9. Therefore, the Petitioners are eligible for the Pay Scales as
mentioned at para (6) above only. You are requested to take further
action in the matter accordingly."
7. In pursuance of the letter dated 07.12.2015 addressed by the 1st
respondent, the respondent--Osmania University--passed orders vide
letter dated 29.01.2016, wherein it is stated as follows:
"5. The Government, through its letter No.1602/UE/2015-2,
Dt.18-08-2015 (5th Cited) sought information with regard to the
Qualifications and nature of duties of the Lab Attendants working
in the University, with a direction to address JNTU, Ananthapur,
and ascertain in writing the qualifications required for recruitment
and duties/responsibilities attached to the post of Laboratory
Attendants of Oil Technology Research Institute of Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University, Ananthapur.
6. As per the information obtained from the JNTU, Ananthapur,
the Qualifications required for the post Lab Attendants of OTRI,
JNTU are higher than those prevailing in this University and the
nature of duties / responsibilities also vary, as detailed below:
Sl.No University Pay Scale Qualification Duties &
Responsibilities
1. Osmania 780-1275 A Pass in Old 1) Keeping the
University (RSP 1986) VIII or New IX instruments /
Machinery clean
and supplying
them to students in
practical lab
2. JNTU 1010-1800 Pass in SSLC or 1) In charge of the
th
(OTRI) (RSP 1986) 10 Class concerned
Ananthapur OR its Laboratory
equivalent.
2) Preparation of
Must have ONE Laboratory
year experience reagents.
in recognized 3) Maintenance of
laboratory Laboratory
records.
7. The information/clarification was forwarded to the
Government, through University letter No.MR-199/39/2015-16, Dt.
19-10-2015 (Ref. 6th cited).
8. The Government, through its letter No.1602/UE/2015-3, Dt.07-
12-2015 (Ref 7th cited, has informed that the Lab Attendants of
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
Osmania University and JNTU are getting the same scale of
Rs.780 - 1275 (RSP 1986) under "Common Category". Only the
Lab Attendants of Oil Technology Research Institute of Jawaharlal
Nehru Technological University, Ananthapur, are kept at a
separate footing by the Pay Revision Commission due to their
different and higher qualifications, experience required and duties
also viz., preparation of Laboratory re-agents etc.,
9. ***
10. The Lab Attendants working in Osmania University have
already been assigned the Pay Scales, as mentioned above, from
time to time. The petitioners in W.P.No.2607/2003 have already
been extended with the benefits on par with petitioners in
W.P.No.21341/1999, the same is reconsidered and confirmed."
8. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,
appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Services-I
for the 1st respondent; and Mr. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent--Osmania University. Perused the record.
9. At the outset, the petitioners, who are Laboratory Attendants in
Osmania University, contend that they are equivalent in cadre to the
Laboratory Attendants of JNTU (OTRI) and are therefore entitled to the
same pay as that of the Laboratory Attendants of JNTU (OTRI). However,
they have been assigned the pay scale of Laboratory Attender of JNTU
under the "Common Cadre."
10. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment in Punjab State
Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, referring to various precedents on the issue, held as
follows:
14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job
evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
Commission etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must
establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or
discriminated. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and
Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under:
"7. The next question that arises for consideration is,
as to what extent the High Court would be justified
in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an
expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of
U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989)
1 SCC 121, this Court unequivocally held that in the
matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the
same should be left to the Executive Government,
who can get it determined by expert bodies like the
Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the
best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and
responsibilities of the posts and when such
determination by a commission or committee is
made, the court should normally accept it and should
not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is
shown that it was made with extraneous
consideration...."
22. After referring to P.K. Roy's case, this Court, in SAIL, held
as under:
"25. In State of Maharashtra and Another v.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others (1981) 4
SCC 130 and Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila
University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7, a
similar view has been reiterated observing that equal
status and nature and responsibilities of the duties
attached to the two posts have to be taken into
consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar
view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v. State of
T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Sub-Inspector
Rooplal and Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief
Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644,
wherein this Court following the earlier judgment in
P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the
post alone may not be a determining factor, the other
three criterion should also be fulfilled."
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
25. It is thus well settled that it is the duty of an employee seeking
parity of scale of pay to prove that the educational
qualifications required for both the posts, mode of recruitment and
the nature of work performed by them are one and the same. There
are neither pleadings nor any material produced by the
respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the
Internal Auditors is similar with that of the Head Clerks. In the
writ petition, respondents have claimed parity of pay scale only on
the ground that they were categorised in Group XII along with the
Head Clerks. Merely on the ground that the cadre of Internal
Auditors are placed in Group XII along with the Head Clerks,
cannot be a ground for seeking parity of pay scale.
11. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), after considering several
precedent judgments, it is to be noted that claims regarding parity of pay
with juniors in the same organization stand on a different footing from
claims seeking pay parity with allegedly "similarly situated employees" in
other departments. Further, the nomenclature of the post/designation
cannot by itself form the basis or sole ground for claiming parity of pay
scale. Persons claiming pay parity must demonstrate that the qualifications
for recruitment and the nature of the work are the same. Moreover, the
purport of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that insofar
parity of pay scalesis concerned, this falls within the domain of the
Executive Government and the Pay Revision Commissions have to
examine such claims. The Courts, under Article 226, cannot take up the
task of job evaluation fordetermination of claims of pay parity, for such
parity depends on a variety of factors, one which is the nature of duties and
responsibilities and the qualifications required to perform the job; and as
per the law through various precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
claim of pay parity is better left to the Expert Committees and Pay
Revision Committees, unless there is a glaring pay disparity on the face of
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
the record, all other things relating to qualifications and nature of duties
and responsibilities being the same.
12. In the instant case, the record shows that the Lab Attendants of
respondent-Osmania University were initially under two different
schedules (i.e., 273 and 247). The Revised Pay Scales (RPS), 1993 merged
them under a single pay scale, i.e., Rs. 1475-2675, and such parity
continued in the RPS of 1999, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The grievance of the
petitioners is that their designation is "Lab Attendants," and there has been
continued parity in pay scale throughout, but now they have been equated
with "Lab Attenders" of JNTU, whereas the respondent authorities ought
to have equated them with the "Lab Attendants of JNTU (OTRI)" and
ought to have granted the higher pay scale as was granted to the "Lab
Attendants of JNTU (OTRI)."
13. In the context of this specific grievance, it is to be noted that the
recruitment qualification for Lab Attendant of Osmania University is a
"Pass in Old VIII or New IX," whereas for Lab Attendant of OTRI
(JNTU), the qualification is "a Pass in SSLC/10th Class or its equivalent,
with one year of experience in a recognized laboratory". Further, the
nature of duties of the Lab Attendant of Osmania University is "keeping
the instruments/machinery clean and supplying them to students in the
practical lab", whereas the Lab Attendant of OTRI (JNTU) is "in charge
of the concerned laboratory, prepares laboratory reagents, and maintains
laboratory records".In view of higher recruitment qualifications and more
advanced nature of duties prescribed for the Lab Attendants of JNTU
(OTRI), the argument of pay parity beingpleaded by the petitioners herein
based solely on the nomenclature of the post, i.e., "Lab Attendant,", and on
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
the basis of parity that once existed in earlier Pay Revision Commission, is
a misconceived grievance.
14. In this connection, it may not be out of place to refer to Page 76 of
the material papers of the writ petition, wherein various posts and their
respective pay-scales are indicated under G.O. (P) No. 347. A bare perusal
at Serial No. 272, pertaining to the post of Boiler Attendant, would show
that the existing Pre-Revised Scale of Boiler Attendant is Rs. 740-1150;
however, in the Revised Pay Scale, internal categorization has been done,
wherein Boiler Attendants without academic educational qualification or
experience are placed at Rs. 1375-2375, and the Boiler Attendants who
have SSC qualification as well as Boiler Attendant Certificate are placed at
Rs. 1665-3200 pay scale. It is to be noted that though, at one point of time,
there used to be parity of pay for all Boiler Attendants in the Pre-Revised
Scale of Rs.740-1150,but in the Revised Pay Scale, they have been
segregated based on their academic education/experience qualifications,
and were assigned different pay scales. Therefore, the parity that once
existed could subsequently get disrupted due to the Pay Revision
Commissions/Government taking note of the different academic
education/experience qualifications in a particular post/cadre; andparity
may be granted for certain posts/employees by merging into common
category.
15. In that view of the matter, there being substantial difference in
respect of the educational and experience qualifications for recruitment,
and also the nature of duties performed by the Lab Attendants of Osmania
University vis-à-vis the Lab Attendants of JNTU (OTRI), and in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power
wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and
wp_44079_2018
NBK, J
Corporation (supra) and several other precedents, the purport of which is
that the nomenclature of a post alone cannot be the sole deciding factor for
claiming/granting parity of pay scale with other employees allegedly
working in similar or analogous posts, the argument of the petitioners
herein cannot be countenanced. There must be similarity in both
recruitment qualifications and also the nature of duties performed, to lay a
claim for parity of pay. In view of the disparity in recruitment
qualifications and nature of duties performed by the petitioners and the Lab
Attendants of OTRI (JNTU), the petitioners cannot be granted the relief
prayed for, and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for lack of
merit.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. W.P. Nos. 29697 of
2017 and 44079 of 2018 are also dismissed for reasons alike. No costs.
This Court, however, is inclined to observe that in view of the policy stand
taken by the 1st respondent in the impugned order dated 07.12.2015,
stating that granting parity in pay scales is the subject matter of the Pay
Revision Commissions (PRC), it is made clear that this order shall not
preclude the petitioners from making appropriate representation before the
Pay Revision Commission, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
24thJuly, 2025
ksm
