'Employees Can't Be Left On Inferior Terms For Decades': Delhi High Court Directs Jamia, UGC To Examine Pay Parity Claims
The Delhi High Court has directed Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central government to jointly examine the longstanding demands for regularisation and pay parity raised by teaching and non-teaching employees of Syed Abid Husain Senior Secondary School, a self-financing institution administered by the varsity.Justice Sanjeev Narula...
The Delhi High Court has directed Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central government to jointly examine the longstanding demands for regularisation and pay parity raised by teaching and non-teaching employees of Syed Abid Husain Senior Secondary School, a self-financing institution administered by the varsity.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed,
"An institutional arrangement between public authorities cannot be allowed to operate for decades in a manner which leaves employees performing essential and perennial functions on substantially inferior terms."
The Petitioners were teaching and non-teaching employees of the school seeking regularisation of their services and parity in pay, allowances and other service benefits with employees performing corresponding functions in other schools maintained by JMI.
They claim to have served the institution continuously for nearly two to three decades while receiving significantly lower remuneration, in some cases almost half of what their counterparts earn.
The Court noted that no substantial distinction had been shown in the nature of work, curriculum, institutional control or responsibilities discharged by the Petitioners that could justify the disparity in pay and benefits.
The principal distinction advanced by JMI was that the school is run on a self-financing basis.
The Court however observed that if financial support is made available and posts are sanctioned, a lawful mechanism could be evolved for regularisation or absorption of existing employees after considering their mode of appointment, qualifications, length of service and applicable recruitment rules.
The Court also referred to a July 25, 2000 communication issued by the UGC while considering the proposal for the second-shift senior secondary school. The communication required JMI to undertake that staff engaged for the self-financing classes would receive the same service conditions as employees of the UGC-funded morning-shift school, while simultaneously making it clear that the UGC would bear no financial liability for the self-financing school.
According to the Court, while this arrangement explains how the present situation arose, it does not justify its indefinite continuation.
"The continued functioning of the school and the interests of its students cannot be disregarded. Equally, an institutional arrangement between public authorities cannot be allowed to operate for decades in a manner which leaves employees performing essential and perennial functions on substantially inferior terms," the Court observed.
The Court further held that JMI, being a Central University, and the UGC, as a statutory body entrusted with maintaining standards of university education, could not remain confined to their respective disclaimers and leave the consequences of the funding arrangement to be borne solely by employees who have sustained the institution for decades.
As such, the Court directed the Vice-Chancellor of JMI to submit a comprehensive proposal within two weeks to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, and the Chairperson of the UGC.
The Court further directed a joint meeting of the three authorities to examine measures for addressing the disparity in pay and service conditions and evolve a fair and financially sustainable solution.
Report of the deliberations has been directed to be placed before the Court within three weeks.
The matter is now listed on August 27.
Appearance: Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sandeep Singh, Ms. Shivani Seth, Ms. Neoma Vasdev, Ms. Anushka, Mr. Prashant Malik, Ms. Divya Chaudhary Advocates in items no. 56 to 124. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Manas Verma, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Ashna Khan, Mr. Shubham Behl, Ms. Bumica Kundra, Mr. Saquib Malik and Ms. Kritika Matta, Advocates in Item Nos. 53-54. Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Mr. Rakesh Bhugra, Mr. M. D. Niyazuddin and Mr. Mohammad Mazhar Ahmed, Advocates in Item No. 55. For Petitioners; Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for JMI with Ms. Shweta Singh, Mr. Mehvish Khan, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocates in Items no. 53 to 124. Mr. Om Prakash, Ms. Swati Mishra, Mr. Chandresh Pratap and Mr. Vikram Singh Arya, Advocates for UGC in Item Nos. 53 & 54. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates in Item Nos. 69,71,72,74,75,78,83,88,89,90,94,95,103,108 and 122. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Sachin Garg and Mr. Shubham Tanwar, Advocates for DoE.
Case title: Shri Islahuddin Khan v. Jamia Millia Islamia University Jamia Nagar And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1962/2019