Susanta Chatterji, J.@mdashThe present Rule was issued on July 27, 1979. An interim order was passed to the effect that no further effect would be given to Annex. ''K'' to the writ petition and interview might be held pursuant to the Administrative Notice, but no effect would be given to the same for a limited period. Subsequently, by order dated March 10, 1980, the interim order was modified directing inter alia that the Petitioner would continue until disposal of the Rule, and to act as confirmed Curator of Kala-Bhavana in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-700. This, however, will not prevent the Respondents from advertising for the posts of other Curators including the post of Senior Curator of Kala-Bhavana and if the Respondents do, so the Petitioner will be eligible for applying such appointment and the Petitioner''s application, if any made, should be considered along with other Applicants. It was made clear that the appointments, if any, of the other posts including the past of Senior Curator of Kala-Bhavana if made, the same will abide by the result of the Rule. It was further made clear that, in any event, if any appointments are made until disposal of this Rule or until further orders of this Court the Petitioner''s position as a confirmed Curator of Kala-Bhavana in the scale of Rs. 425-700 should not be in any way affected.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the Petitioner was appointed as Curator Fine Arts Museum, Kala-Bhavana, at a scale of Rs. 425-700 per month with usual allowances. The Petitioner''s appointment was confirmed by a letter dated April 29, 1977. It is stated that on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, the University Grants Commission proposed to revise the existing pay scale of the Curator, and on the basis of such proposal the Karmachari Samity by its meeting held on September 20/21, 1975, revised the "existing scale of pay of the Curator from Rs. 400 to Rs. 700. The said Order No. G/U, 3-19 (TPC) dated December 4, 1975, is alleged to have been sent to all the heads of the departments. Being'' aware of such revision, the Petitioner allegedly made a representation to the Principal, Kala-Bhavana, praying for granting enhanced pay scale in terms of the resolution of the Executive Council. In reply, it was, however, placed on record by the Visva-Bharati University Authority that the posts of Curators of Kala-Bhavana and Rabindra-Bhavana could not be treated as equivalent. Being surprised, the Petitioner made several representations to the appropriate authority, but without responding to the same the Respondent Visva-Bharati University Authority advertised to fill up the post of Curator affecting the right of the Petitioner. The Registrar of the Visva-Bharati University by its letter dated July 12, 1979, informed the Petitioner that the revision of pay scale of Rs. 700 to Rs. 1300 for the post of Curator is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner, and there was an attempt to reduce the rank and status of the Petitioner from the post of Curator to the post of Assistant Curator since the Petitioner''s representation was not properly appreciated, and the Petitioner has come to this Court to seek reliefs by issuance cf a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to quash and/or rescind the impugned order and advertisemtn being Annexs. T, ''K'', ''N'' and ''E'' to the writ petition on the ground that having regard to the fact that the Petitioner was duly appointed and confirmed in the post of Curator, Kala-Bhavana, the Respondents acted illegally and without jurisdiction in re-designating the post of Curator as Assistant Curator (Annex. T) and the order dated Juns 30, 1979. (Annex. ''K'') to reduce the Petitioner''s post of Curator to the rank of Assistant Curator is mala fide and without jurisdiction.
3. The writ petition is contested by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in details that the post of Curator of Kula-Bhavana was originally in the scale of pay of Rs. 150-10-250-50-400 and Sri Pronobesh Scngupta was appointed to the said post on a basic salary of Rs. 150 on September 1, 1969. The aforesaid post was and/or has been equivalent to the position of a Senior Assistant of the University. The University Grants Commission inter alia dated February 5, 1970, revised the scale of pay of the Senior Assistants to Rs. 200-425. Subsequently, with effect from January 1, 1973, pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission the said pay scale was further revised to Rs. 425-50-E.B. 15-560-20-700. It is also stated that the advertisement dated June 1, 1975, issued in the Statesman for the post of Curator, Kala-Bhavana, as disclosed in Annex. ''A'' to the said application, would clearly show that the said post carried the revised scale of pay of Rs. 425 to 700. It is also stated that the advertisement dated June 1, 1975, required that the Applicant for the post of Curator, Kala Bhavana, was required to possess degree/diploma in Fine Arts and Crafts from Kala-Bhavana or equivalent institution with experience in Museum/Exhibition display and should have undergone Museum training from the National Museum, New Delhi, or any other Centre under the Archeological Survey of India in Museum work and methods of preservation as the Petitioner, who applied for the post in June 1975, disclosed that he passed the School Final Examination in Second Division in 1974 and was a diploma-holder in Fine Arts and Crafts in Visva-Bharati as well as a certificate-holder in Museology of the National Museum, New Delhi. The Petitioner was recommended for the post by the Standing Selection Committee which met on August 2, 1975, and pursuant to the recommendation of the Committee, on offer for appointment was made to the Petitioner on October 3, 1975, in the scale as stated above, and the Petitioner, in fact, joined the said post at the said scale on October 31, 1975. On recommendation of the Third Pay Commission the pay scale of Curators enjoying the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 400 to 950 was revised by the University Grants Commission to Rs. 700-40-900-E.B. 40-1100-50-1300 with affect from January 1, 1973. Accordingly, the resolution of the Karmachari Samity dated September 20/21, 1975, will amply bear out that the revised pay scale was applicable to only those Curators who at the material time were in the existing pay scale was applicable to only those Curators who at the material time were in the existing pay scale of Rs. 400 to 950 could in any way annure to the benefit of the Petitioner who was in the pay scale of Rs. 425 to Rs. 700. It is also disclosed that as a part of the Fifth Five Year Development Plan, the University Grants Commission sanctioned a new post of Curator for Kala-Bhavana, and the Executive Council of Visva-Bharati by its resolution No. 60 of February 22/23, 1978, decided to sanction scale of pay Rs. 700 to 1300 to the post of new Curator at Kala-Bhavana. The University Grants Commission also sanctioned another post of Curator for the School of Historical Studies in the scale of pay similar to that of Literature, viz. Rs. 700 to 1600. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are at present four posts of Curators in the University bearing scale of pay Rs. 425-700 and Rs. 700-1300, one to Rabindra-Sadan carrying a pay scale Rs. 700 to Rs. 1300. The newly created post of Curator at Kala-Bhavana in the scale of pay Rs. 700-1300 is quite different from the existing post of Curator held by the Petitioner at Kala-Bhavana in the pay scale of Rs. 425 to 700. In this context, there is no question of discrimination between Curators holding altogether different posts as per pay scales. It is asserted by the said Respondents that the Petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim automatic fixation of salary in the scale of pay Rs. 700 to Rs. 1300. In this connection, however, the University Grants Commission, inter alia, accepted the revision of scale of pay of the Curator in the pay scale of Rs. 400 Rs. 950 and 700 to Rs. 1300 and the said pay scale had nothing to do with the pay scale of the Petitioner having Rs. 425 to Rs. 700. It is also asserted that the re-designation did not visit the Petitioner with the consequence as to his status, pay scale and grade, and the Petitioner cannot ask for any relief in the manner as prayed.
4. The Petitioner, however, filed a supplementary affidavit on February 24, 1986, placing on record that May 30, 1982, an advertisement (9/82) was published for the post of Senior Curator,. The Petitioner applied for the post as directed by the Hon''ble Court and he was called for interview which was held on August 23, 1985. Although the Petitioner had all the requisite qualifications for being selected as Senior Curator in comparison to other candidates, all appointments have been treated as cancelled without assigning any reason. The Petitioner has, in fact, discharged all functions as the sole Curator of Kala-Bhavana, Museum and Art Gallary. It is claimed that with an ulterior motive to deprive the Petitioner to the scale of pay as awarded by the Third Pay Commission to the Curators attempts are being made to create the post of Senior Curator and Deputy Director. The Petitioner has further alleged that for the month of September 1975 the pay scale of the Curator, to which the Petitioner is holding, was upgraded to Rs. 700 to Rs. 1300 on the basis of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, and although the Petitioner is holding the post of Curator, such recommended pay has been withheld by the Respondents, and in spite thereof the Respondents are trying to create and change the designation of the post of Curator in order to deprive the Petitioner only.
5. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to various portions of the pleadings of the parties and argued that there is clear discrimination amongst various scale holders and the right of the Petitioner has been prejudiced in support of his contention. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the decisions in
6. Mr. Parthasarathi Sengupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, has argued that the Petitioner cannot get relief in the manner as prayed for. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Mew Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors. 1989 (1) L.L.C. 566. He has laid much emphasis upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision that equal pay for equal work, the doctrine is open to the State to classify employees on I he basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities and prescribes different scales of pay on different basis.
7. Upon consideration of the relevant facts and looking to the materials in depth, this Court finds that the University Grants Commission by its communication dated January 12, 1978, informed the Registrar, Visva-Bharati University that the University Grants Commission had considered the report submitted by Dr. Narayana Mcnon, Directo,. National Centre regarding development schemes of Kala-Bhavana and Sangeeta-Bhavana and has agreed to provide the following additional assistance /or th,eir development during the Fifth Plan period. It was made clear that Kala-Ehavana and Sangeeta-Bhavana should become integrated areas of growth, areas which should provide fertile grounds for inter-disciplinary projects, for the inter-action of music, dance, the fine arts, literature, philosophy, archaeology. In particular, for Kala-Bhavana the treasure-house needs careful handling and preservation, and proper arrangements must be made for this valuable collection. From the admitted facts, it clearly transpires that the Petitioner was appointed as Curator of Kala-Bhavana and his service was confirmed. While scales of pay of Curators of different Bhavanas of the Visva-Bharati University were upgraded, it cannot be said that the Petitioner''s holding the post of Curator was and/or is not entitled to such benefits of the revision of scale of pay in accordance with law. The stand taken by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 that as the Petitioner was enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 425 to 700 and he is not entitled to the benefits of the revision of pay scale of Rs. 400 to 700 or any other scale. Since it is clear that all the posts of Curators in different Bhavanas are entitled to benefits of the revision of the scales of pa)'', the Petitioner is equally entitled to revision of scale of pay notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 at the material point of time. Any attempt on the part of the University Authority to treat the Petitioner as Assistant Curator or to treat him for having less qualification in comparison with other Curators in different Bhavanas appears to be discriminatory and mala fide. The effect of the Third Pay Commission and the revision of pay scale as per direction of the University Grants Commission will clearly benefit to the posts of Curators of different Bhavanas of Visva-Bharati University and admittedly the Petitioner is holding the post of Kala-Bhavana and he is entitled to revision of scale of pay with cumulative benefits. The question of any step taken by the University Authority to re-designale the post of the Petitioner as Assistant Curator is contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of law and such an attempt is deprecated.
8. Looking to the materials in details, this Court is of the clear view that there is no bar and/or impediment to grant the reliefs to the Petitioner as prayed for.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned orders to re-designate the post of the Petitioner as Assistant Curatol- or otherwise are quashed and set aside. The Petitioner as Curator is entitled to the benefit of revision of scale of pay equally as in the case of the persons enjoying such benefits being the scale of pay Rs. 400 to Rs. 700 and Rs. 400 to 950. The Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the revision of the scale of pay cumulatively. This order will, however, not prevent the University Authority to make a fresh advertisement for the post of Senior Curator and the Petitioner will be given an opportunity to appear before the Interview Board it he applies the same having necessary requisite qualifications. There will be, however, no separate order as to costs.
10. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for and is refused.
