Indian Institute Of Technology vs M.S.Bidarkundi And Ors

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY .......APPELLANT(S)

Versus

M.S. BIDARKUNDI AND ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

The respondents joined the services of the appellant-Indian institute of

Technology (`the Institute', for short) as Junior/Senior Research Assistants

(Academic Cadre), Junior/Senior Technical Assistants (Technical Cadre) and

Research Scholars. As they were stagnating for long without promotional

opportunities, the Institute promoted them to supernumerary posts of Laboratory

Superintendents with pay scales equivalent to that of Lecturers. As the Laboratory

Superintendents were not extended the benefits that were extended to academic

staff, the respondents filed WP No.1757 of 1988 seeking a direction to the Institute

to classify them as academic staff.

2. During the pendency of the said petition, the age of superannuation of

employees of the Institute which was originally 60 years, was increased as 62 years 2

in respect of academic staff (scientific design staff and others), personnel of

Registry (Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar), Library (Librarian,

Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian) and Physical Education (Group `A') who

were on the roll of the Institute as on 31.8.1998, vide Resolution of Board of

Governors dated 15.6.1999, pursuant to Government of India's directive dated

31.8.1998. As the Laboratory Superintendents were not being categorized either as

academic staff or as personnel of Registry, Library or Physical Education, they were

not extended the benefit of the increased age of superannuation. Therefore, they

filed another Writ Petition No.922 of 2000, seeking a declaration that they are

entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation (62 years) as per the

Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications.

Alternatively, they sought quashing of the said directive dated 31.8.1998 and the

consequential resolution of the Institute dated 15.6.1999, if they were to be

construed as ignoring the Laboratory Superintendents as a class from coverage.

3. The High Court disposed of the said two writ petitions by a common

order dated 7.7.2004. It held that on account of passage of time, the issues raised in

WP No.1757 of 1988 had become academic and consequently disposed of the said

writ petition, as no relief was required to be granted to the writ petitioners in that

petition. In so far as WP No.922 of 2000, the High Court declared that the

respondents are eligible for the increased age of superannuation of 62 years as per

the Government of India's directive dated 31.8.1998 and subsequent clarifications.

The High Court also issued a direction to the Institute to implement the said GOI

directive dated 31.8.1998 and its clarifications and apply to the respondents, the 3

increased age of superannuation of 62 years. A further direction was issued to the

Government of India to release necessary grants to the Institute to enable the

Institute to pay the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits to the

respondents herein within four months. A direction was issued to the Institute to

pay the respondents, on release of grant by the Government of India, within four

weeks of such release. The Court further directed that if the respondents were

entitled to be reinstated as a consequence the Institute should either reinstate them

or give the monetary benefits upto the age of superannuation.

4. The said order of the High Court is challenged by the Institute. The

Institute contends that classification of posts is the function of the Board of

Governors of the Institute under Statute 11 of the Institute with reference to the

functions or duties discharged by the holders of such posts, and the court could not

have taken over the said function and classify the posts of Laboratory

Superintendents or any other posts as academic or otherwise. It is also submitted

that while extending a benefit, it is not necessary to extend the benefit to all the

employees at the same point of time and it is possible for the employer to make

dissimilar provision with regard to different groups of employees and that would

not amount to discrimination. Reliance is placed on decisions of this Court in Ajoy

Kumar Banerjee vs. Union of India & Ors - 1984 (3) SCC 127, and IIT, Kanpur

vs. Umesh Chandra - 2006 (5) SCC 664.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is clear from the decision in

Umesh Chandra (supra) that classification of posts is the function of the Board of 4

Governors. If the Statute requires classification and Board of Governors fails to

discharge that function, the appropriate course for the court is to direct the Board

of Governors to discharge its duty and not take upon itself the said function.

6. Statute 11 requires that all employees of the Institute, except those paid

from contingencies, shall have to be classified into three groups : (a) academic staff,

(b) technical staff, (c) administrative and other staff. Statute 11 also enumerates the

several posts which fall under the said three categories. The said statute also

contemplates the Board classifying any other posts as either academic, technical or

administrative posts, by appropriate resolution. In these cases, the posts in which

the respondents were earlier employed fell either under the category of academic

staff (that is, the posts of Junior/Senior Research Assistants and Research Scholars)

or under technical staff (that is, the posts of Junior/Senior Technical Assistants). All

the respondents were promoted as Laboratory Superintendents which were

supernumerary posts and not cadre posts, purely as a measure of relief from

stagnation. The Board has not chosen to classify the posts of Laboratory

Superintendents as either academic, technical or administrative, as required by

Statute No.11, as they are supernumerary posts. In the absence of classification of

Laboratory Superintendents by the Institute under any of the specified categories,

and as the said posts are considered as supernumerary posts, the classification

which applied to them prior to their promotion will continue to apply to them. That

is, those respondents who were earlier holding the posts of Junior/Senior Research

Assistants, and Research Scholars will be continued to be classified as academic

staff and those who were earlier holding the posts of Junior/Senior Technical 5

Assistants will be continued to be classified as technical staff, until the Board of

Governors of the Institute assigns a classification to the post of Laboratory

Superintendent. We are therefore of the view that until the post of Laboratory

Superintendent is classified, the respondents should be treated as continuing to

belong to the category to which they belonged before promotion to the

supernumerary post of Laboratory Superintendent. We are also of the view, to avoid

confusion and uncertainty, the Board of Governors of the Institute should classify

the post of Laboratory Superintendent under Statute No.11, by taking note of

relevant factors including the duties discharged by them.

7. We therefore allow these appeals and issue the following directions in

place of the directions issued by the High Court :

(a) Such of those respondents, who were academic staff before their

promotion as Laboratory Superintendents shall be considered as

academic staff for the purpose of extension of benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation;

(b) Such of those respondents who were technical staff before their

promotion as Laboratory Superintendents will be continued to be

considered as technical staff for the purpose of considering whether they

are entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation.

(c) The respondents shall extend reliefs consequent to such classification, to

the appellants found eligible within three months.

(d) The Board of Governors of the Institute shall classify the post of

Laboratory Superintendent under Statute 11 within four months from 6

today. While doing so, they may consider the representations of the

respondents, for appropriate classification.

(e) Parties to bear their respective costs.

.........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; .........................J. July 02, 2008. ( P. SATHASIVAM )