Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1999

29th September, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Mr H.D. DANGRE
Respondent Counsel: Mr A. PARIHAR, Ms USHA TANNA

Cases Cited:
State of Bihar and ors Vs. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and ors., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 368 [Para 3,7,8,12,23,26]
State of T.N. & anr Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104 [Para 4,8,29]
Grid Corporation of Orissa & ors Vs. Rasananda Das, (2003) 10 SCC 297 [Para 12,13,30]
D.P. Sharma & ors Vs. Union of India and anr., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 [Para 12,13,30]

JUDGMENT

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J :- Five petitioners before us have challenged the judgment delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for direction to respondents to extend to them the pay scale of Rs.3700-5700 by treating them as Head of the Department. It is not in dispute that all five petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College under respondents no. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989.

2. Mr Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has contended that only defence before the Tribunal raised by respondents no. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent is not a teaching post. He points out that norms issued by respondent no. 3 All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Act") were not in dispute and its binding effect was shown by respondent no. 3 even before the Tribunal. He has invited attention to those norms as in the year 1990 to urge that by its perusal, there is no scope for doubt that post of Workshop Superintendent has been treated as equivalent to the post of Head of the Department or then of Senior Lecturer (Selection grade) and pay-scale for them is Rs. 3700-5700. He has also pointed out the relevant clauses to substantiate his contention and to show that Workshop Superintendent has been placed in the cadre of Head of the Department. Job description of a Lecturer and of Workshop Superintendent is also read out for this purpose. Contention is that this material on record has not been looked into by respondent no. 5 Tribunal.

3. Without prejudice to this contention and in the alternative, learned counsel has, presuming that Workshop Superintendent cannot be treated as a teaching post, invited attention to the communication dated 20th September 1989 issued by AICTE to urge that there recommendation on the point of revision of pay-scale appears and for Head of the Department the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 has been proposed. Learned counsel states tat recommendations with AICTE are applicable even to petitioners. The decision of State Government dated 26th May 1992 issued in the light of this communication is also relied upon and it is pointed out that those revised scales have come into force from 1st January 1986. Attention is invited to later resolution dated 22nd November 1993 which modifies this resolution and exempts them from acquiring revised educational qualification. The judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and ors reported at 1993 Supp (2) SCC 368 is pressed into service to show that there the post of Workshop Superintendent is already held to be a teaching post by Honourable Apex Court. Thus, in the light of this judgment and above- mentioned decision/resolution, contention is that petitioners are entitled to payscale of Rs. 3700-5700.

4. In the light of this material, order of the Tribunal dated 5.1.1999 is also read out and it is contended that the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court has not been appreciated at all. It is further contended that the fact that petitioners were duly qualified and, therefore, were selected and have been appointed as Workshop Superintendent prior to 20th September 1989 or its impact in present matter is totally lost sight of by the Tribunal. It is contended that letters of AICTE mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its order were, therefore, not relevant at all. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of T.N. & anr v. Adhiyaman Educational and ors reported at (1995) 4 SCC 104 to show that AICTE is the only authorised and competent body to decide not only qualification but also pay structure and the State Government cannot avoid its responsibility to implement the norms prescribed by it. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to preamble of 1987 Act and mandatory provision Section 10 thereof with contention that the subjects mentioned in clause IV of Section 10 are only illustrative. It is contended that it is the exclusive privilege of AICTE to take all steps for ensuring coordination and integrated development of technical education and norms fixed by it, therefore, deserve primacy. The provisions in Section 22 conferring rule-making power, Section 23 authorises AICTE to frame Regulations and requirement in Section 24 to lay rules and regulations before the Parliament, are also pressed into service for said purpose.

5. Ms Usha Tanna, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has urged that Workshop Superintendent is not Head of the Department, but he is in-charge of Workshop. The norms prescribed by AICTE are not binding upon the State Government and attention is invited to the fact that for post of Head of the Department more superior qualifications are prescribed. He points out that only petitioner no. 1 was possessing those qualifications at the relevant time. In this backdrop, attention is invited to Norms and Standards for Polytechnics, particularly clause 6.2.4 which shows that post of Workshop Superintendent is placed in the cadre of Head of the Department with stand that it is not equivalence.

6. Mr Parihar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for other respondents has supported the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He contends that post of Workshop Superintendent is falling in Maharashtra Educational Service, Class-I (junior cadre) while post of Head of the Department is in superior cadre. He points out that when MPSC advertised the post, this position was apparent and it also stipulated that Workshop Superintendent had the prospects of promotion to the post of Head of the Department. Pay-scale of Rs. 2200-2700 was also indicated in the advertisement. He has invited attention to the norms and standard as issued by respondent AICTE in August 1990 to urge that those norms are only guidelines. Table-10 dealing with staff salaries is stated to be based on hypothetical pay-scales only for the purposes of cost estimation. It is pointed out that in so far as teaching cadre is concerned, post of Lecturer is an entry post and post of Senior Lecturer in pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 is next superior post. Post of Head of Department/Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Workshop Superintendent/Training and Placement Officer are still higher posts and all these posts are given pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700. He states that thus a person with requisite qualification and recruited in pay-scale commencing from Rs. 2200 cannot jump hierarchy and become Head. He argues that higher qualifications prescribed in clause 6.1.11 of said norms clearly show that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with Head of Department. The attention is invited to the Government Resolution dated 26th May 1992 which has been passed after communication dated 20th September 1989 from the AICTE to demonstrate that the State Government had decided to implement the Scheme as envisaged by the AICTE with some modification in scales of pay and subject to terms and conditions of service as described therein. The coverage is to teacher who fulfills required qualification laid down by the AICTE. Appendix-I along with this resolution is again pressed into service to show how post of Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-3700 is lowest post or entry post. Next higher post available is of Lecturer (Senior Scale) and thereafter Lecturer (Senior Grade) and then at sr. no. 4 post of Head of Department in pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5300. Learned Assistant Government Pleader in this backdrop contends that effort of petitioners to compare themselves with the post of Head of Department in present facts is, therefore, misconceived. He points out that qualifications as prescribed were held only by petitioner no. 1 and not by others. According to him, having applied in response to such an advertisement and then worked accordingly, challenge of such nature raised belatedly is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. He points out that AICTE is not providing any financial assistance and hence, grant of pay-scale is a policy decision completely in domain of the State Government.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010 issued under Notification dated 5th March 2010. These Regulations referred to as "2010 Regulations" have come into force on 5th March 2010 and extend pay-scale of Lecturer to Workshop Superintendent and not the pay-scale of Head of the Department. Provisions of Clause 1/1.3 (a) and Faculty Norms prescribing qualifications are pressed into service. To substantiate this contention, orders dated 8th February 1996 and 20th January 1992 issued to one Vijay Mankar and Ajay Shah and others are also shown to this Court to demonstrate that the post of Head of the Department is superior to the post of Workshop Superintendent. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and ors (supra) is sought to be distinguished by pointing out that there pay-scale demanded was of a Lecturer and as per UGC recommendations.

8. Mr Dangre in reply has contended that stand of respondent no. 3 before this Court is contrary to its stand before the Tribunal. He contends that similar grievance was made before Honourable Apex Court about role of respondent no. 3 in State of Bihar and ors v. Bihar State Workshop Supdt Federation and ors (supra). He submits that now petitioners no. 2 and 5 have both acquired post-graduate qualification and petitioner no. 1 is has a doctorate. According to him, therefore, even if the educational qualifications are required to be looked into, petitioners no. 1,2 and 5 satisfy the said requirement. He has invited attention to communication dated 11th December 1998 sent by AICTE to respondents no. 1 and 2 to show that there it has been specifically communicated to respondents that Training and Placement Officer and Workshop Superintendents are equal in cadre to Head of the Department and, therefore, post of Workshop Superintendent is post of Head of the Department. In this backdrop, observations in paragraph 40 in the judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of T.N. & anr v. Adhiyaman Educational and ors (supra) are relied upon along with relevant provisions of 1987 Act to urge that norms fixed by AICTE must be implemented by respondent no. 1.

9. Inviting attention to booklet issued by respondent no. 3 from which Annexure-E has been produced before this Court, learned counsel contends that word "estimation" used therein is only because of number of students presumed. He points out that such number of students is taken to be 180 and accordingly, the number of posts required in various cadres is worked out and on that basis cost estimation has been arrived at. According to him, if number of students increases or decreases, it will result only in proportional reduction in number of teaching and non-teaching posts, but it will not affect the pay-scale as prescribed therein.

10. By placing reliance upon the fact that Workshop Superintendent and Training & Placement Officer are already equated with Head of the Department by Statute, he seeks to rely upon copy of order dated 29th July 1997 to urge that Training & Placement Officers are duly recognized as Head of the department. He contends that thus said recommendation of respondent no. 3 has been implemented only in relation to Training & Placement Officers and has been withheld in case of cadre of petitioners. This, according to him, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. Regulations issued on 5th March 2010 and produced by learned Assistant Government Pleader are sought to be used in favour of petitioners by stating that in it the post of Workshop Superintendent is recognized as teaching post. Similarly, the entitlement or power of respondent no. 3 to prescribe even pay-scales is duly recognized in it. Thus, stand of respondent State Government before Tribunal that Workshop Superintendent is not a teaching post is defeated by this document. Similarly, finding of Tribunal that Section 10 of 1987 Act does not enable respondent no. 3 AICTE to prescribe pay-scales is also rendered infructuous.

12. Without prejudice to this contention, learned counsel states that the settled service conditions of the petitioners cannot be disturbed by these subsequent Regulations which have come into force on or after 5th March 2010. Right to receive pay-scale of Head of the Department has accrued to petitioners before they approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in 1997 and hence Regulations of 2010 can be given only prospective effect. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa & ors v. Rasananda Das reported at (2003) 10 SCC 297 is pressed into service to show that there cannot be retrospective change of pay-scale prejudicial to the employees. Similarly, judgment of Honourable Apex Court in D.P. Sharma & ors v. Union of India and anr reported at 1989 Supp (1) SCC 244 is also pressed into service with contention that rule for determination of seniority and promotion cannot be changed to the disadvantage of employee retrospectively. Learned counsel, therefore, reiterated that in the light of norms issued by AICTE, post of Workshop Superintendent must be treated as equivalent to post of Head of the Department and in view of judgment of Honourable Apex Court in State of Bihar & ors v. Bihar State Workshop and ors (supra), challenge in the petition needs to be allowed.

13. Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Grid Corporation & ors v. Rasananda Das (supra) shows that there Honourable Apex Court has held that conditions of service cannot be altered to the disadvantage of employees by reducing their pay-scales or withdrawing any service benefits. Facts show that higher pay-scale was granted by appellant Corporation to the employees employed prior to 1960 at par with other employees by State Government without any reservation. Such employees were entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age though for employees recruited after 1.4.1960 age of retirement was 58 years. Effort was made to reduce pay-scale for such pre-1.4.1960 employees for the service rendered by them between 58 years and 60 years. Honourable Apex Court has found that such an exercise was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there could not have been two types of pay-scales, one for the purpose of continuing in service upto the age of 58 years and later for continuing after the age of 58 years till age of 60 years. The observations are in the backdrop of a right to receive pension and Honourable Apex Court has noted that the pension is not a bounty, but hard-earned benefit. Thus, said employee while continuing upto 58 years of age, was entitled to protection and a higher pay-scale. However, when he was rendering service beyond 58 years and till 60 years, his pay-scale was getting reduced. This affected his last pay and, therefore, pension. In D. P. Sharma & ors v. Union of India and anr (supra), Honourable Apex Court has found that rule providing that persons substantively appointed to a grade shall rank senior to those holding officiating appointment in a grade could not have retrospective effect. It could not impair the existing rights of officials who were appointed long prior to the Rules came into force. Honourable Apex Court noticed that office memoranda relied upon by learned single Judge of the High Court and perused by it clearly expected only length of service to be a guiding principle for arranging inter-se seniority of officials. Approach of Division Bench was, therefore, found not correct.

14. Here the violation of Article 14 and above case law is pressed into service by pointing out the orders issued by the State Government on 29th July 1997 and thereafter It appears that earlier State Government had approved filling up of a vacancy in the post of Head of the Department by promotion. However, some posts though approved were from quota to be filled in by nomination and hence, ad-hoc promotions were made against it. Issue of continuing such ad-hoc promotees further by giving them break of one day was under consideration of the State Government. Accordingly by giving such break, promotions have been continued. The persons whose names appear at sr. nos. 5 and 6 in said order appear to be Training & Placement Officers. Their qualifications are not before us and learned Assistant Government Pleader is also not in a position to meet this document as it has been produced today at the eleventh hour. There is no supporting affidavit and application. Narration above clearly shows that promotions were only on ad-hoc basis. Mr Dangre at this stage states that compilation given by him contained other orders also which show transfer of Training & Placement Officers as Heads of the Department and vice-versa. The question sought to be raised on the basis of these orders necessitates some factual substratum. In absence thereof, we are not in a position to accept the contension of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

15. Perusal of 2010 Regulations produced by the Assistant Government Pleader show that the same are framed under Section 23 (1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Thus, same are statutory in nature. Its cognizance, therefore, needs to be taken by this Court. The Regulations are issued by respondent no. 3 AICTE and are acted upon by other respondents. It is, therefore, apparent that any effort on their part which militates with its validity cannot be countenanced. Similarly, clause (i) thereof after clause 1.3 having heading "General" reads that "There shall be designations in respect of teachers in Polytechnics, namely, Lecturer, Head of the Department and Workshop Superintendent". Little later again, heading "Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions" appears. It is, therefore, obvious that these 2010 Regulations accept Workshop Superintendent as teacher. In clause (a) after this heading, various pay-scales are prescribed from clause (i) to (xvi) and thereafter heading "Workshop Superintendent" appears. Thereafter Regulations mention that "Workshop Superintendent is treated at par with Lecturer and is to be considered for upward mobility similar to that of Lecturers". At the end of these Regulations, Faculty Norms are mentioned. Faculty Norms stipulate minimum qualifications and experience for appointment of teaching posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions. First post appearing therein is of Lecturer/Workshop Superintendent in Engineering/Technology. Qualifications prescribed therefor are Bachelor's degree in Engineering/Technology in the relevant branch with First Class or equivalent. If the candidate is possessing Master's degree in Engineering/Technology, first class or equivalent is required at Bachelor's or Master's level. Second post is of Head of Department and qualification prescribed is, Bachelor's and Master's degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/Technology with First Class or equivalent either at Bachelor's or Master's level with minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/research/industry. Alternate qualification prescribed is, Bachelor's degree and Master's degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/Technology with First Class or equivalent either at Bachelor's or Master's level and Ph. D. or equivalent in appropriate discipline in Engineering/Technology with minimum of 5 years relevant experience in teaching/research/industry. It is, therefore, obvious that because of doctorate, the candidate is eligible even if he has five years of relevant experience.

16. Having noted the qualifications for the post of Workshop Superintendent and Head of Department in 2010 regulations, it is appropriate to refer to the qualifications prevalent when the petitioners were recruited. The advertisement by Respondent No. 4 published on 22.09.1988, reveals that the Educational qualification contemplated was Second Class Degree in Bachelor of Engineering or Master's Degree in Engineering or then Diploma in Second Class in Engineering and passing of A & B parts of A.M.I.E. with 3 years experience. The pay-scale then stipulated is Rs.680-1250. The petitioners possessed this qualification and were accordingly appointed. Petitioner No. 1 was holding a Post Graduate qualification. The Circular dated 26.05.1992 issued by the State Government on division of pay-scales shows post of Lecturers in two pay-scales. One post is in pay-scale of Rs.600-950 and another in the pay-scale of Rs.680-1250. The pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and Rs. 600-950 are revised on 01.01.1986 to Rs.2250-3700. The pay-scale of Workshop Superintendent does not figure in Appendix 1 with this Government Resolution. This revision is in accordance with the communication dated 20.09.1989 issued by the Principal Secretary of Respondent No. 3. That communication recommends pay-scale of Rs.700-1300 for the post of Lecturer. For Senior Lecturers, A.I.C.T.E. had noticed that there were no uniform scales and had recommended new scale of Rs.3000-5000. For Heads of Department or Lecturer Selection Grade, pay-scale of Rs.1100-1600 is shown by A.I.C.T.E. with remarks that there were no uniform pay-scales. The proposed new scales by A.I.C.T.E. was Rs.3700-5300. The State Government in above mentioned Appendix I has shown revised pay-scales of Rs.3000-4500 to Lecturers (Senior Grade) and Rs. 3700-5300 to Lecturers (Selection Grade). For Heads of Department, State Government has shown existing pay-scale of Rs. 1000-1500 and revised pay-scale from 01.01.1986 as recommended by A.I.C.T.E. i.e. Rs.3700-5300. The petitioners were recruited in the pay-scale of Rs.680-1250 and that pay-scale has been revised to Rs. 2200-3700 by State Government in the case of Lecturers. The communication dated 20.12.1997 sent by Desk Officer to the Director of Technical Education records that Workshop Superintendents were also working in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-3700. Thus, from 01.01.1986, pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 has been extended to the petitioners. This, therefore, shows that after said pay-scale was extended to the petitioners from 01.01.1986, there was an intervening pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 and then Rs. 3700-5300. The petitioners claimed this pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300 applicable to the Lecturers (Senior Grade) or Heads of Department, thereby stepping over pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 applicable to Lecturers (Senior Grade)and those qualifications.

17. The A.I.C.T.E. has prescribed qualifications also along with its communication dated 20.09.1989. Those qualifications for Lecturers are First Class Bachelor Degree or then M.Sc. First class, qualifying in All India Examination and selection through prescribed selection procedure. For Senior Lecturers, though qualifications were same, five years experience as Lecturer was held essential. M. Tech. degree or Ph.D. degree was also held sufficient. Insofar as Head of Department is concerned, First class Master's degree or Ph.D. degree is held essential. Similarly, five years experience in teaching is also essential. There recommendations nowhere expressly make reference to the post of Workshop Superintendent. State Government has on 26.05.1992 while implementing these recommendations, decided to implement the same with some modifications in the scales of pay. The revised payscales are held applicable to teachers who fulfilled required qualifications laid down by A.I.C.T.E. Clause 8 of that Scheme points out details of the qualifications as also experience required as given in Appendix V. Clause 9 expressly mentions that candidates fulfilling minimum qualifications prescribed for the posts of Teachers would be eligible for grant of revised pay-scales.

18. On 22.11.1993 State Government has modified these requirements and noted that its resolution would be applicable to existing technical staff such as Principal, Heads of Department, Selection Grade/ Senior Lecturers/ Lecturers who were appointed by Competent Authority prior to 20.09.1989 by exempting them from acquiring revised educational qualifications.

19. The issue of qualifications need not be gone into in more details by us. The petitioners have been given revised salary in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 from 01.01.1986. It is not the case of the petitioners that at the time of their recruitment as Workshop Superintendent, they were holding qualifications necessary for appointment as Heads of Department. The Norms and Standards for Polytechnics (Diploma Programmes) issued by All India Council for Technical Education on August 1990 nowhere carry reference to any statutory provision under which the same have been formulated. The perusal thereof reveals that in clause 6.1.5, categories included in staff pattern are mentioned. Principal and Teaching staff has been shown as Category I and Workshop staff has been shown as Category II. Clause 6.1.6 then shows Teaching staff cadre. The lowest post in hierarchy is shown as that of Lecturer with next higher post as Senior Lecturer. Head of Department/ Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade) is placed above him and at the top appears the post of Principal. Thereafter there is a note which reads "the Training and Placement Officer and Workshop Superintendent will be equal in cadre to Head of Department". These, norms also prescribe essential qualifications for Head of Department. These qualifications are not different than what we have noted while making reference to communication dated 20.09.1989 issued by A.I.C.T.E. Similar qualifications also figure for Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. Specific qualifications for the post of Workshop Superintendent are not separately mentioned anywhere. These norms also show the duties and responsibilities of Teachers of Polytechnics.

20. Our attention has been invited to clause 6.2.3 which deals with Workshop staff. The categories of workshop staff are Workshop Superintendent. Below it is placed the post of Foreman Instructor, Workshop Instructor then Workshop Attendant. 6.2.4 deals with Workshop Superintendent. It is mentioned that he is Head of all Workshops in Polytechnics and is responsible to the Principal in all matters connected with the Workshop instruction, proper utilization of men, material and machines and maintenance in Workshops and services in various departments. At the end, again sentence "he will be in cadre of Head of Department" appears. His job description is also given and that job description is at Annexure-F with writ petition. The perusal of AnnexureF shows that it is claimed to be copy of some Annexure-I and it has got heading "Teaching Load of Workshop Superintendent for odd and even term". Said Annexure or workload is not forming part of Norms and Standards for Polytechnics mentioned above. We have, therefore, pointed out this position to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of Writ Petition particularly para 8 shows that it is filed as part and parcel of Table X. Table X is part of earlier Annexure i.e. Annexure E which is nothing but Norms and Standards of Polytechnics.

21. Perusal of original book containing Norms and Standards of Polytechnics shows that said Annexure does not form part of Table X also. In petition, it is mentioned that in Table X, post of Workshop Superintendent is conferred with pay-scale of Rs.3700-5700. The perusal of Table X which deals with staff salaries reveals that it is at page No. 57 of Norms and post of Workshop Superintendent is shown at Sr. No. 2 along with the post of Head of Department, Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade), Workshop Superintendent, Training and Placement Officer. The post of Senior Lecturer appears at Sr. No. 3 with pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 and post of Lecturer is at Sr. No. 4 i.e. the last cadre in pay-scale of Rs.2000-4000.

22. After these norms issued in August 1990, the State Government has issued its resolution dated 26.05.1992 wherein it has extended pay-scale of Rs.2200-3700 to Lecturers and as already noted by us, State Government has done so with some modifications in scales of pay. There is no challenge to these modifications.

23. The petitioners claimed that they are from teaching staff and equivalent to Head of Department and hence they are entitled to pay-scale of Rs.3,700-5300. They are not claiming any other pay-scale or any other advantage. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others .vrs. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and others reported at 1993 Supp (2) SCC 368, needs to be appreciated in this background.

24. In the said judgment, there was an earlier petition filed by one Shri Gupta, a Workshop Superintendent claiming himself to be a teaching employee, and therefore, the entitlement to UGC pay-scale. It was allowed in part, and Letters Patent Appeal against it was also disposed of after noticing the decision of the State Government to implement the UGC pay-scales for employees of Polytechnic. Thus the UGC pay-scale of Rs.1200-1900 was extended to him from 01.04.1973. S.L.P. preferred by Government of Bihar was dismissed in motion as the Hon'ble Apex Court found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the same. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court in challenge to subsequent orders passed by the High Court, contention of State of Bihar was, as Workshop Superintendents were not holding teaching post, there was no question of extending UGC pay-scales to them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this background in paragraph no.6 has noted the contentions of respondents before it and a letter dated 12.04.1959 sent by the AICTE to all State Governments equating the post of Workshop Superintendent with assistant professor in pay-scale of Rs. 650-1150 in engineering colleges and that of a lecturer in pay-scale of Rs.350-850 in polytechnic conducting diploma courses. In paragraph no.7, qualifications laid down by the AITCE on 10.10.1966 for teaching staff have also been noted. For Workshop Superintendent, qualification noted is First Class Diploma in Engineering with 8 years experience or Second Class Degree with 5 years experience. It was further pointed out that there were only 15 Workshop Superintendents who would get the benefit, if the pay-scales as recommended by the AICTE were extended. The Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that it was a dying cadre and in Bihar College of Engineering, Patna and R.I.T. Jamshedpur the Workshop Superintendent were granted pay-scales of Assistant Professor as per UGC. In paragraph no.8 the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that AICTE and other authorities were treating the post of Workshop Superintendent as teaching post and had fixed them in the pay-scale equivalent to Associate Professor. Then the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "so far as this category of respondents is concerned, it is a dying cadre, and even if in terms, they are not entitled to grant of UGC scale which can only be made applicable in case of a teaching staff serving in the colleges run by the University, we find no justification so far as the respondents are concerned, not to allow them the benefit of the pay-scale at least equivalent to the post of assistant professors."

25. Thus, in view of the historical background and terms and conditions of service and pay-scales which remained applicable to the respondents for a considerable long period of time, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the revised pay-scale of Assistant Professors (senior Scale) Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 to the respondents. This has been done in order to do complete justice. Thus, finding recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court no where expressly state that said post of Workshop Superintendent were held as equivalent to the post of associate professors (senior scale). On the contrary due to the long standing practice in State of Bihar, the terms and conditions of service and as it was a dying cadre, in order to do complete justice that pay-scale has been extended to the Workshop Superintendents. It is to be noted that the said pay scale of associate professor was as per the recommendations of the UGC and State of Bihar had already accepted to implement the same for teaching employees of Polytechnic and Engineering Colleges. Said Workshop Superintendents required superior qualifications. In facts before us, no UGC pay-scales as such is pointed out or pressed into service and qualifications expected are also not of same level.

26. The payscale of lecturer as revised on 01.01.1986 is 2200-3700 and pay-scale of Lecturer [senior scale] is 3000-4500. Pay scale of Lecturer [selection grade] is 3700-5300 as per government resolution dated 26.05.1992. Thus exact identical pay scale comparable with one awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that of Lecturer [senior scale]. In State of Bihar that pay scale was 3000-5000, while in the State of Maharashtra it was 3000-4500. It is to be noted that the pay-scale for Head of the Department also began from 3700 and was same as that of Lecturer [selection grade]. The Hon'ble Apex Court was not required to look into the claim that Workshop Superintendents are in the cadre of Head of Department and hence, are entitled to pay scale of 3700-5300. It is not necessary to go into more details of said matter at this stage. However, it needs to be pointed out here that, if Lecturer [senior scale] is shown as Senior Lecturer, AICTE Norms in August, 1990 prescribed pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 for said post and the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and others .vrs. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and others (supra) has given that pay scale to respondents before it.

27. The qualifications prescribed for Workshop Superintendents prevailing at the time of entry of petitioners in service are not in dispute. The statutory regulations prescribing qualifications have come into picture only on 05.03.2010. Faculty norms which form part of the said regulations and lay down the minimum qualification and requirement of experience etc., show same qualification for Lecturer and Workshop Superintendents. These statutory regulations when viewed in the background of the history which we have noted, it is apparent that though the Workshop Superintendents have been treated as part of teaching staff, they have not been treated earlier either as Lecturer or then as Lecturer (Senior Scale). The Lecture (Selection Grade) and Head of Department are the posts at top of the hierarchy. A person in order to become eligible for consideration as Lecturer was required to hold better/superior qualification then the post of Workshop Superintendent. In this situation, mere communication from the AICTE stating the Workshop Superintendent is equal in cadre of Head of Department or then their inclusion in AICTE norms of August, 1990 in Table 10 as a part of teaching staff along with the Head of Department, Senior Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Trainee and Placement Officer, does not by itself entitle them to the scale of Head of Department. The Workshop Superintendents, envisaged in August, 1990 Norms by the AICTE are persons who can be said as equal to Head of Department or Senior Lecturer [Selection Grade] not only because of pay scale, but because of better qualification also. Effort of petitioners to claim pay scale of Head of Department merely because they are equated with cadre in Head of Department, is, unsustainable. Mere mention that Workshop Superintendent is treated at part with Head of Department or Senior Lecturer is not sufficient. It is well settled that even while extending equal pay for equal work, difference in qualification is held sufficient to deny this benefit. Here also "mention" and "equation" are artificial and became necessary, may be, only for administrative convenience.

28. Effort of petitioners is to show that because of AICTE recommendations their pay scales stood revised to 3700-5300 with the pay scale of Head of Department. It is to be noted that there was no statutory instruction till 05.03.2010 in this respect. The Government of Maharashtra in terms on 26.05.1992 adopted the AICTE Norms with some modifications in pay scales and petitioners were given pay scale of Rs.2200-3700 i.e. equivalent to the Lecturer from 01.01.1986. Neither judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar (supra) nor any Norms/Standards introduced petitioners in superior cadre. In this situation, we find no substance in the efforts of petitioners to compare themselves with either Head of Department or Lecturer (Selection Grade) to claim their pay-scale.

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in 1995 [4] SCC 104 (State of T.N. And another .vers. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others) considered the issue of powers with State Government to grant and withdraw permission to start an institution, after coming into force of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 i.e. 1987 Act. All observations therein are because of a statutory provision occupying the field vide 1987 Act, and the State enactment i.e. T.N. Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. Articles 246, 248 and 254 of the Constitution of India have been found to be determinative and Entry no.66 in ScheduleVII List 1 (Union List) is interpreted. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for petitioners on conclusions recorded in paragraph no.41(i) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the expression "coordination" used in entry no. 66 means harmonization, with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to certain design, Scheme or plan for development. It is to be noted that therefore, it includes action not only for removing all disparities in standards, but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. The further conclusions, particularly [v] and [vi], also show situation in which State authority is not prevented from laying higher standards or qualifications. When State Authority de-recognizes or disqualifies an institution for not satisfying the standards or qualifications laid down by it, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if such institution satisfies the norms and recommendations laid down by the Central Authority, the State Government acts illegally. It is therefore, obvious that when there was a binding law occupying the field and State Government wanted to do something inconsistent with it, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found it unsustainable. Here that is not the position. No binding law was available, at least till 05.03.2010. The AICTE laid down some norms in August, 1990 but then as already observed by us above, those norms have no statutory force. Moreover, prescriptions therein did not and do not confer any right upon petitioners to claim pay-scale of Rs.3700-5300.

30. As we have found that there was no service condition, settled or otherwise, which could have forced the State Government to extend the pay scale of 3700-5300 to petitioners, it is obvious that there is no change in their service conditions. The arguments of learned Counsel for petitioners, that Regulations of 2010 are prospective and cannot affect the pay scales already determined, are therefore, misconceived. Reliance upon judgment reported in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa and others .vrs. Rasananda Das (supra) and in case of D.P. Sharma and others .vrs. Union of India and another (supra), is therefore, misconceived. We have already made reference to law as expanded in those judgments, briefly above and it is sufficient to reveal that reliance upon it is misconceived.

31. Hence, in this situation, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, rejection of claim as made by petitioners by respondent no.5 Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, cannot be interfered with. Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.