Union of India & Ors Vs. Shri Bijoy Lal
Ghosh & Ors [1998] INSC 147 (4 March 1998)
M. Venkataswami,
A.P. Misra Misra, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
common question raised in the aforesaid appeals is, whether the respondents,
who were primary school teachers under the Dandakaranaya Development Project
(hereinafter referred to as `DDP'), under the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Rehabilitations, Government of India, in the relevant period
would be entitled to the higher pay scale as per the recommendations of the
National Commission on Teachers headed by Professor D.P. Chatopadhya
(hereinafter referred to as "National Commission") in terms of the
circular dated 12th August, 1987 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Department of Education. The appellants denied such claim as the
aforesaid circular applies only to the teachers of the schools under the Union Territories (expect Chandigarh)
including Government aided schools and organisations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and Central Tibetian Schools Administration etc. The claim of the respondents
was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter
referred to as `Tribunal') upholding the contention of respondents and
directing the appellants to pay at the revised scale with effect from 1st
January, 1986 in line with the Railway Ministry's circular dated 11th April,
1988 or the aforesaid HRD Ministry's circular dated 12th August, 1987 and also
give consequential refixation of the pay under the rules.
Aggrieved
by the said order, the present appeals are filed by the Union of India and
others.
To
appreciate the controversy, we refer to short facts.
The
respondents were initially appointed as primary school teachers under the DDP
as aforesaid in the Ministry of Home Affairs from the year 1966 onwards. They
have been posted at the various primary schools. They have been posted at the
various primary schools under the said project. As a result of policy decision
by the Central Government, it was decided on the 1st April, 1986 to handover
all the aforesaid schools under the DDP to the State Governments and any
teachers and other employees rendered surplus were taken on roll of Central
Surplus Staff Cell of the department of Personnel and Training vide order dated
28th April, 1986. In pursuance of this, respondents were transferred to the
aforesaid surplus staff cell with effect from 1st April, 1986.
Thereafter
they were re-deployed in the various departments and offices of the Central
Government consequently were relieved from the surplus cell with effect from 22nd September, 1986 onwards to join the new postings in
various non-teaching cadres. This is not in dispute that these respondents
while working as teachers earlier were given pay scale of Rs. 226-400 with
effect from 1st January, 1973 as per the recommendations of the 3rd Pay
Commission which was subsequently revised on the basis of the 4th Pay
Commission and were paid in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1st
January, 1986. The grievance of the respondents is that they have not been
given the benefit of the recommendations of the National Commission of the
teachers by the aforesaid Chatopadhya Committee. The said report was accepted
by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Eduction, which is
evident from the circular dated 12th August, 1987, through which higher pay scale to school teachers were
made admissible. As this report was given effect from 1st January, 1986, the respondents claim the benefit
as they were factually working on this date as primary school teachers under
the aforesaid DDP.
The
appellants denying this claim submits that this circular is not applicable to
the teachers working under DDP. The National Commission report is applicable
only to such departments which have accepted its report. The reliance placed by
the respondents only refers to the acceptance by the Defence and Railway
department and not Home Ministry under which aforesaid DDP was working.
Further,
since education being a state subject under the legislative entry under the
Constitution and the schools under DDP having been transferred to the State
Government concerned, teachers under it would be benefitted when the State
Government accepts the report. The said report was accepted specifically only
for the Union Territories as it is also evident by the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987. It is further submitted that on
the date of the said circular there could not be any consideration for the
primary school teachers under DDP as the very institution under DDP, was no
more in existence, stood transferred to the State Governments.
The
National Commission recommended the following pay scales for the primary school
teachers :- Primary School Teachers : Rs. 1200-2040/- Senior Scale (After 12
years) : Rs. 1400-2600/- Selection Scale (After 12 years in senior scale and
attainment of qualifications laid down for TGTs) : Rs. 1640-2900/- Learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr., Subba Rao, submits that the respondents were
neither Government servants nor the National Commission report is applicable to
all the teachers.
We
will revert back to this last submission but before it, we refer to the latter
No. 1028/A/W/(School) dated 15th March, 1989,
of Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board.
The
relevant portion is quoted hereunder :- "Sanction of President has been
received under Ministry of Defence letter quoted above, addressed to Ordnance
Factory Board copy to all concerned ordnance Fys. among others regarding the
application of revised scales of pay, teaching allowance and special allowance
as sanctioned in Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of
education) letter No, F. 5- 180/86-UT-I dated 12.8.1987 (based on the
recommendation of the National Commission on Teachers under the Chairmanship of
Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhya
enclosed with the above letter to the teachers of Ordnance Factory
Schools." Similarly another letter No. E(P&A) I.87/PS.5.PE.5, dated 11th January, 1988 of Railway Board. The relevant
portion is quoted hereunder :
"Sub
:- Revision of pay scales of school teachers.
The
Ministry of Railways have on the recommendations of the National Commission on
Teachers, under the Chairmanship of Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhyay,
decided that the revised (4th Pay Commission) scales and selection Grades for
teachers on the Railways should be further revised as in the Annexure attached.
2.---------------------------------
-
3. The
revised pay scales, Teaching Allowance and special Allowance and special
Allowance will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
The
arrears of pay for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1986, which will accrue
over and above the arrears of pay consequent upon the introduction of the
revised scales of pay on the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, vide
this Ministry's letter No. PC- IV/86/IMP/Schedule/1 dated 24.9.1986, shall be
deposited in the provident fund accounts of the employees. Amendments to the
Railway service (revised pay) Rules, 1986, regulating the fixation of pay in
the newly introduced scales will follow separately." The aforesaid two
letters indicate, so far the departments of Defence and the Railway adopted the
pay scales as recommended by the aforesaid National Commission, which was over
and above the 4th Pay Commission. It is also significant that the acceptance of
the said report is with effect from 1st January, 1986 which is in consonance
with the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987.
Now,
reverting to the aforesaid last submission, we find that the appellant itself
has accepted respondents as Government servants and gave them the scales as
recommended both by the 3rd and the 4th Central Pay Commission. When the 4th
Central Pay Commission came, Government was aware of the aforesaid National
Commission, hence, the scale of the 4th Pay Commission granted to the teachers
was as an interim measure till recommendation of the National Commission. This
fact is also evident from the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987. The
relevant portion is quoted hereunder :
"I
am directed to say that the National Commission on Teachers' under the
Chairmanship or Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhyay
has made various recommendations concerning pay and services conditions of
teachers at school level, pending Government's decision on the report of
National Commission on Teachers the Fourth Central Pay Commission only
recommended the replacement scales for school teachers. Accordingly, these pay
scales were implemented vide Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)'s
Notification No. F. 15(1)-IC-/86 dated 13th September, 1986 and 22nd September,
1986. Subsequently, it was clarified that the revised scales of pay for
different grades of teachers are based only on the recommendations of the
fourth Central Pay Commission, that decision on the recommendation of National
Commission on Teachers is yet to be taken and that to be done as soon as
possible.
2. In
partial modification of finance Ministry's Notification No.F15(1)/IC/86 dated
13th September, 1986 and 22nd September, 1986, by which replacement scales were
given to school teachers, it has now been decided that the revised pay scales
of school teachers in all Union Territories (Except Chandigarh) including
Government aided school and organisation like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and
Central Tibetan Schools Administration etc. will be as under." Next repelling
the contention for the appellants that Chattopadhya Committee report is not
applicable to all the teachers, Shri Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, placed before u s the relevant portion of the
aforesaid report of the National Commission to show that the said report was
not confined nor was constituted for any specified Territory, State or Union or
class of teachers but was wide enough to include all facets of all classes of
teachers in the entire territory of this country.
He
placed the book `The Teacher And Society' containing report of the National
Commission on Teachers - I, 1983-85.
Page
89 gives the resolution of the Government of India, Ministry of Education and
Culture (Department of Education) to constitute National Commission on
Teachers. Under that two National Commissions were set up to advise the
Government on various aspects relevant to the teaching community as specified
in terms of reference. The National Commission No.1 was to deal with the issues
relating to the teachers at the school stage and the National Commission No.2
to deal with the issues relating tot he teachers at the higher education level
(including technical education).
Broadly,
the terms of reference included to lay down the objectives for the teaching
profession with reference to the search for excellence, breadth of vision and
cultivation of values in keeping with the country's heritage and ideals of
democracy, secularism and social justice. To suggest measures for fostering
dynamism in the profession and attracting and retaining talented persons in the
teaching profession. To recommend measures to enhance the role of teachers in
facilitating, motivating and inspiring students in the acquisition of
knowledge, skills and values and promoting them through the spread of the
scientific temper, secular outlook, environmental consciousness and civic
responsibility. Also the adequacy of arrangements for promotion of teachers'
welfare with special reference to the National Foundation of Teachers Welfare
and to suggest modifications wherever necessary.
Chapter
1 page 1 of the report shows that the Commission and its members visited 21
State Capitals and few other districts and discussed the matter with leaders
and senior officials of the Government and also visited selected institutions
to make on the spot assessment. At page 26 it reveals under para 5.16 that the
Commission dealt with primary teachers and referred to the bad condition of the
primary school teachers. The Commission also recorded at para 5.23 :- "The
Commission feels that a stage has been reached in the development of education
in this country, when a bold decision must be taken in favour of replacing the
present jungle of salary scales for teachers and educational administrators by
composite running scales (See Appendix XIII(xvi)..........................
...."
At para 5.25 it records as under :- "As an illustration of the kind of
running scale, we have in mind we would suggest a scale beginning with Rs.500
as the starting salary of a primary teacher and ending with Rs. 3950 as the
maximum of the grade for the State Director of Education." Then, page 92
gives the summary of the recommendations which clearly reveals that the
Commission has dealt with the subject with national goal, the role of the
teachers under Chapter II, towards a new design of education under Chapter III,
Social justice : Universalisation of elementary education under Chapter IV, the
status, working conditions and welfare of the teacher under Chapter V, supply
and recruitment of teachers under Chapter VI and the training of teachers under
Chapter VII, etc. After perusing the `National Commission Report', apart from
its very name, there can be no doubt that its recommendations are neither
confined to any specific Territory nor only for the Union Territory, but was actually for the whole country.
Further,
this fact is also borne out from the question and answer in the Parliament
placed by the appellants themselves in one of the aforesaid appeals, which
reveals the concern of the Parliament about its implementation apart from the
Union territory. The relevant portion of the said question and answer is also
reproduced below :- Q. "Will the Minister of Human Resources Development
(a) Whether Union Government have issued any directives to the States for
giving uniform pay scales to the teachers throughout the country as recommended
by Chattopadhyay Commission;------------------------ -------------? Ans.
Keeping in view the recommendations of the NCT-I, the Fourth Central Pay Commission
and National Policy on Education, the pay scales for teachers in the Union
Territories have been revised by the Government. For the teachers in the
States, the Government have their own mechanism for periodically revising the
pay scales and related service conditions. It is for the State Governments
concerned to suitably revise the pay scales applicable to their teachers. The
report of NCT-I has been forwarded to all State Government for appropriate
action." In other words, it reveals Government's total acceptance of the
report of the National Commission and, in turn, to pay the same scales to its
teachers and the acceptance was not confined to the Union Territory but
included the concerned State Governments.
Next
question is whether the respondents, who were teachers on the relevant date,
were Government servants or not? The stand of the appellant that they are not. is
not sustainable. This is evident even by the letter dated 16th September, 1985
by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Home Affairs (Rehabilitation
Division) Dandakaranaya Development Authority, Office of Zonal Administrator
which contains Office Order No. 528/85 which records the following :-
"Consequent on promotion to the post of untrained Graduate Teacher from Asstt.
Teacher, the pay of Shri....... has been fixed at Rs. 350/- with effect from
9.1.1984 with date of next increment on 9.1.1985/1.1.1985---------------as per
pay fixation statement given below :- PAY FIXATION STATEMENT
1.
Name of the Govt. Servant : Sri Nirmal Kr. Mandal
2.
Post held and scale of pay : Asstt. Teacher Rs. 260-6 -290-EB-6-326-B-366-EB-B
-390-10-400/- 3. Date of promotion as U.G. Teacher : 9.1.1984 Forenoon
Admittedly, like respondents the aforesaid letter also refers to one of the
Assistant Teachers who was promoted to the post of untrained graduate teacher
in the same Dandakaranaya Development Authority and the Government itself
describes such teachers as Government servant. We also find DDS (Redeployment
of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 which has been framed in exercise of powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and in supersession
of the redeployment of Surplus Staff against vacancies in the Central Civil
Services and Posts (Group `C') Rules, 1967, the Redeployment of Surplus Staff
against vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts (Group `D') Rules,
1970, the redeployment of Surplus Staff against vacancies in the Central Civil
Services and Posts (Groups `A' and `B') Rules, 1986, and the Redeployment of
Surplus Staff in the Central Civil Services and Posts (Supplementary) Rules,
1989. This was framed for regulating redeployment and re-adjustment of surplus
staff against vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts. Rule 2 (g)
defines `surplus staff' and `surplus employee or employees', to mean the
Central Civil servants (other than those employed on ad hoc, casual,
work-charged or contract basis) and Rule 2 (g)(b) (3) refers to such employees
who have been rendered surplus along with the post from the Ministries, offices
of the Government of India, as a result of abolition or winding up either in
whole or in part of an organisation of the Central Government.
In
view of the aforesaid letter of the appellant, the aforesaid rules and the
Central Government giving to the respondents the benefit or the 3rd and the 4th
Pay Commission report, it leaves no room for doubt that the respondents were
and are Government servants and treated as such.
Learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr. Subba Rao, Rajendra Singh Rajput 1997 (10) SCC
426. This case, in our opinion, does not help the appellants. This was a case
where respondent, a Junior Engineer in Dandakaranaya Project since 29.9.1983,
was later transferred being surplus to the Central Public Works Department and
he claimed the higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the ground that Junior
Engineers in the CPWD were getting that scale on the principle of `equal pay
for equal work'. That was upheld and later Junior Engineers/Section Officers
(Horticulture) in the CPWD who could not be promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 due to non- availability of vacancies in
that grade, was allowed the scale of Assistant Engineer, that is to say
Rs.2000-3500 on a personal basis after completion of 15 years of total service
but when later, the aforesaid Junior Engineer from the Dandakaranaya Project
also claimed this upgraded scale, the same was rejected with the following
observations :- "He cannot claim the benefit of ungraded scale available
to Junior Engineers in CPWD. Moreover, merely because under order dated 8.8.91,
the respondent was given the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the basis of the
principle of `equal pay for equal work` cannot mean that the respondent is also
entitled to claim the benefit of the upgraded scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which is
available in CPWD only having regard to the conditions in that department and
is not applicable to Junior Engineers in other departments of the Central
Government. The respondent could not, therefore, be extended the benefit of pay
scale of Rs. 2000- 3500 on the ground that he has completed 15 years of service
as Junior Engineer." This was a case where claim of Junior Engineer of DDP
against another Junior Engineer in CPWD, who was given upgraded scale
subsequently, was rejected on the facts of that case which has no application
in the present case. The present case is neither a case of `equal pay for equal
work' nor claim based on parity of another on any upgraded post or scale. Here
the claim is based on their own right under the said National Commission
Report.
The
crux of controversy is the justifiability of the claim of the respondents to
receive the benefit of scale of the difference of pay scale between what was
given by the 4th Pay Commission and later enhanced by the National Commission
to the teachers similarly to the class to which respondents belong. Their claim
is confined to the period between 1st January, 1986 to 1st April, 1986. The
significance of this is that on 1st April, 1986 respondents were declared as surplus
and were gradually absorbed thereafter in the various Government departments at
the same scale as they were drawing on the said date. That adjudication of this
claim have bearing as it would decide what pay scale they would be entitled
during this period and in case their absorption at the relevant time was at a
lower scale then they would be entitled at such adjudicated higher pay scale
including consequential increments in accordance with the rules. Respondents
are not claiming any benefit given to the teachers under the said report after 1st April, 1986. In this regard even the stand of
the appellant is not in doubt. The appellant has accepted that absorption of
respondents to the various Central Government offices were on posts carrying
equal pay scales which they were drawing at the relevant time. The same is
evident from para 5 of the SLP itself where it records that in the process of
winding up of Dandakaryanya Project, all the educational institutions rum under
it were handed over to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and
respondents who were in excess were declared surplus and rendered to the
Central (Surplus staff) Cell, after allowing them revised/replacement scales.
It is further stated on their redeployment, they were relieved of their duties
from the DDP for joining in different Central Government offices, organisations
in various posts carrying equivalent pay scales.
Here
the question is, in case the pay scale as given by the the National Commission
is applicable to the respondents they would be entitled for their higher pay
scales at the relevant time. Admittedly, between 1st January, 1986 and 1st
April, 1986, the
respondents were drawing the pay scale as per the 4th Pay Commission report
which was interim in nature as it awaited pay scale to be given by the National
Pay Commission. If on the relevant date, they are entitled for the pay scale as
per the National Commission report, the claim of the respondents would succeed,
as upheld by the tribunal as their absorption have not been on this upgraded
pay scale.
For
the respondents, strong reliance is placed in the another, 1973 (1) SCC 651.
Relevant portion is quoted hereunder :- "Para 15. - Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the
recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which
categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of
reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has
made reference in respect of all Government employees or it h as not. But if it
has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the
recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all
Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some
employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are
concerned." Mr. Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel, submits even in the
present case, reference was made to the National Commission for all classes of
teachers comprehensively and the Central Government has accepted the said
report and applied to all the teachers under it, either under Union Territory
or other departments, referred to above, then there is no justification for
excluding the respondents who were working as teachers at the relevant time
under Central Government.
Mr. Subba
Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Secretary, Madras Civil Audit &
Accounts Association and Anr, etc. 1992 (1) SCR 530 to show, though case of Purshottam
Lal (supra) was referred, yet report as a whole was not implemented. Relevant
portion is quoted hereunder :- "Having given our earnest consideration we
are unable to agree with the view taken by the Full Bench of CAT that the
principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted irrespective of the fact
that the posts were identified and upgraded in the year 1987. There is no
dispute that after such upgradation, officers in both the wings who are doing
the equal work are being paid equal pay. But that cannot be said to be the
situation as well on 1.1.86 also. The learned counsel, however, submitted that
the recommendations of the Pay Commission should be accepted as a whole in
respect of all the categories of employees. In this context he relied on two
decisions of this Court. In Purshottam Lal and Others V. Union of India and
another, (1973) 1 SCC 651 a question came up whether the report of the second
Pay Commission did not deal with the case of those petitioners. It was held thus
:
`Either
the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it
has not.
But if
it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepted
the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of
all Government employes. If it does not implement the report regarding some
employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
That is what the Government has done as far as these petitions are concerned.'
In P. Parmeswaran
and Ors. V. Secretary to the Government of India, (1987) Suppl. SCC 18 in a
short judgment this Court observed that because of the administrative
difficulties the Government cannot deny the benefit of the revised grade and
scale with effect from January 1, 1973 as in the case of other person."
This decision does not dilute the principle as laid down in the case of Purshottam
Lal (supra). In this case, the appellants submitted that the office memorandum
dated 12th June, 1987 was passed on the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay
Commission which consisted of two parts. The first part recommended
corresponding pay scale for the existing posts in the Accounts Wing giving
effect from 1st January, 1986. The other part was contained in para 11.38.
Pursuant
to those recommendations, the Government decided to implement the same, namely,
the second part with effect from 1st April, 1987. The following passage in this
case makes it clear that it has not deviated from the principle as laid down in
Purshottam Lal (supra) but its resultant view was on the special facts and
circumstances of that case.
"There
is no dispute that in the instant case the terms of reference of Pay Commission
applied to all the categories of Government servants. But the question is as to
from which date the other category referred to above namely Assistant Accounts
Officer etc. should get the higher scales of pay.
Identification
of these posts and the upgradation cannot be treated as mere administrative
difficulties. The implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commission
according to the terms thereof itself involved this exercise of creation of
posts after identification which naturally took some time. Therefore, the above
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are of no help to there
respondents." The question raised there was, whether two different dates
of the applicability of he same recommendation could be upheld when the report
was accepted by the Government.
This
Court held that different dates of applicability was necessary since the
Government in terms of the Pay Commission recommendation was to create posts
after identification which naturally has to take some time. Hence, two
different dates of its applicability when other posts were yet to be created in
terms of recommendation itself cannot be said to be bad in law. There is no
such fact so far as the present case is concerned.
For
the respondents, reliance was also placed in the Others 1974 (2) SCR 249. Here
also the appellants' contention was that letter dated 17th November, 1953
should be implemented because Government accepted the recommendation of `Kalyanwala
Committee'. Hence, denial of its benefit to the appellants is violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It
was submitted there that other checkers performing duties similar to those of
the appellants have been guaranteed the benefit of the said order. This case
relying on the decision and principle of the Purshottam Lal (supra) allowed the
appeal of the appellants.
After
giving our due consideration both to the facts and the law, which we have
referred above, it is not in dispute that the respondents were teachers working
with the Central Government between 1st January, 1986 an d 1st April, 1986. The
Government absorbed them in its various departments at the same pay scale which
they were drawing then. The Central Government has accepted the National
Commission (Chattopadhyay Committee) report and gave benefit to all its
teachers working in the Union Territory and some of its departments and that
all the States in India have also accepted the same. The documents on record
also reveals, apart from the teachers working in the Union Territory, Central
Government approved other teachers working in some other departments. The pith
and substance and spirit of the reply at the Parliament indicates at least
Central Government's total acceptance for all its teachers to whom the said
report was applicable. The appellant, namely, Union of India, has not brought
on record anything to the contrary to show the exclusion of respondents from
giving the said benefit on the relevant date, as were given to all the
teachers, who were placed in the same position as the respondents. The only
argument advanced was, not on the basis on any record but as submission that
since the institutions under DDP were handed over to the States of Orissa and
Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January, 1986 and that not being in existence,
respondents having been taken as surplus and were in due time absorbed in the
various departments, the benefit of the increase in pay scale as recommended by
the National Commission was not given to them. Apart from the fact that t here
is nothing on the record to show even this reasoning for declining the said
claim, we find even otherwise, this submission has no merits. The respondents
are not claiming all or other benefits which were given and to be received in
future to the teachers but confining their claim to the period when,
admittedly, they were teachers and all the teachers irrespective of the fact
that they were taken by the State Government or with the Central Government
were given that benefit. If that be so, there could be no justifiable reason to
exclude that benefit to the respondents.
It is
always possible to exclude any class based on reasonable classification to the
benefit under any policy decision, the classification having direct nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. But in the present case, in the absence of
any material placed, we do not find any such so far the respondents are
concerned. Reading that would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
In the
present case, we find that the Government has stoutly supported the
recommendations and the same is said to have been implemented in the Union Territories and some of its departments. There is nothing to show that
there were other departments in which similar teachers were employed but such
benefit was not given. In fact, all the departments of the Central Government
could not have teachers. Nothing to show apart from cases of respondents that
any other class of teachers in the Central Government departments were
excluded. In fact, on the contrary, we find the aforesaid letter dated 12th
August, 1987 is from the Education Department viz. the Human Resources
Department which is the parent department under which all teachers fall and was
issued after concurrence of Department of Finance. Thus, the stand of the
appellants that they were not considered as institution under DDP itself stood
transferred or for the lack of either consideration or lack of approval cannot
be accepted. This apart, we find the aforesaid letter dated 12th August, 1987
in its second para while approving the sanction records it to the following :
"..............all
Union Territories (except Chandigarh) including Government aided schools and organisations
like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Calcutta Tibetan Schools Administration
etc.
will
be as under." The use of words "organisations like" and the word
"etc." indicate similar other organisations, institutions etc. the
same was not exhaustive. In consideration to this, we conclude and include t he
teachers who were working in DDP as the respondents. We further conclude, if
for the aforesaid reasons, their claims were not considered, this
non-consideration of their this legitimate claim, when all such belonging to
that class received at the relevant date, is arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
In our
considered opinion respondents are entitled to receive the benefit of the
recommendation of the National Pay Commission. We further conclude, in every
case so far as the Central Government is concerned, to give benefit of the
National Pay Commission to its teachers from 1st January, 1986, the respondents
are also entitled to receive the same benefit under it from the same date.
For
the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded herein before, we do not find
any merit in these appeals.
These
appeals are accordingly dismissed. Cost on the parties.
Back