State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Champa Devi & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 535-536 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8475-76 of 1998)
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15342 of 1998)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8475-76 of 1998)
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15342 of 1998)
Petitioner: State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent: Champa Devi & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 535-536 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8475-76 of 1998)
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15342 of 1998)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8475-76 of 1998)
Civil Appeal No. 534 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15342 of 1998)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 17, 2002
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Articles 226, 14, 136 – Parity in pay scales and dearness allow-ance – Circulars dated 14.5.91 and 7.8.92 by state of Haryana to give incentives to employees of state government – Circular dated 7.1.94 granting interim relief to employees, in anticipa-tion of pay revision by pay commission – Fourth circular dated 8.2.94 granting higher pay scale to teachers in government schools in state – Whether teachers in privately managed, recognised aided schools are also entitled to same scale and incentives under the circulars. Held that so far as circular dated 8.2.94 is concerned, it granted higher pay scale and hence, concession made by counsel for state before High Court was correct. Teachers in private aided schools are entitled to same pay scale. However, other circulars were in form of incentives, which cannot be claimed as matter of right. Hence, appeal partly allowed. Haryana Adhyapak Sangh’s case followed. (Paras 4, 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Punjab & Ors. v. Om Prakash Kaushal & Ors. ((1996) 5 SCC 325) (Para 5)
2. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma & Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC 710) (Para 2)
3. Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1990 (Supp.) SCC 306) (Para 2)
4. Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (JT 1988 (3) SC 172) (Para 2)
2. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma & Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC 710) (Para 2)
3. Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1990 (Supp.) SCC 306) (Para 2)
4. Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (JT 1988 (3) SC 172) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the State of Haryana are directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The dispute centres round the question whether the teachers of pri-vately managed recognised aided schools would be entitled to the benefits which the government had conferred by issuing circulars at different point of time. In this batch of cases we are con-cerned with four such circulars, i.e. circulars dated 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, 7.1.1994 and 8.2.1994. Out of these four circulars, the first two circulars appear to have been issued as an incentive to the employees of the Government of Haryana State and the third circular is an interim relief granted to them while the matter of revision of pay was under consideration before the Pay Commis-sion. The fourth circular dated 8.2.1994 is a higher scale of pay to the teachers of the Government schools in Haryana on certain contingencies. When the teachers of the privately managed schools filed the writ petition before the High Court, the state did not file any counter affidavit. In course of arguments before the High Court the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana conceded that the circular dated 8.2.1994, which had been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, is a matter relating to the scale of pay of the teachers. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, relying upon the earli-er decisions of this Court in the cases of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (JT 1988 (3) SC 172), State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma & Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC 710) as well as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1990 (Supp.) SCC 306), came to the conclusion that the teachers of the privately managed schools would be entitled to all the benefit emanating from the aforesaid four circulars which were undoubtedly meant only for the government servants in the State of Haryana.
3. Assailing, the aforesaid judgment in these appeals, Mr. Mahen-dra Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, vehemently contends that the decisions of this Court on which the High Court has relied upon, clearly envisage that there should be a parity in the scale of pay and the dearness allow-ance, but other incentives, which are granted to the government servants or teachers of Government schools, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the form of parity by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. According to Mr. Anand, all the aforesaid four circulars were in the nature of incentives to the government servants to ameliorate the grievances of stagnation at a particular stage and, therefore, the High Court was in error in granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the decisions of this Court in the cases referred to above, the conclusion is irresistible that the teachers of private schools would be entitled to the same scale of pay and other allowances. According to Mr. Kalra, the aforesaid circulars, in fact, are in the nature of a higher scale of pay and not as an incentive, as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the state.
4. Be it stated that even though no counter affidavit had been filed by the state in the High Court and a concession was made by the counsel appearing for the state, stating that the circular dated 8.2.1994 is in relation to the scale of pay of a teacher, in the special leave petitions filed in this Court by the state, no ground had been taken that no such concession had been made. Though in course of hearing of these appeals, Mr. Anand vehe-mently contended that the concession on a question of law should not bind the state in assailing that concession in this Court and further the circular dated 8.2.1994 is in the nature of a stag-nation/promotion policy intended for those employees who have not been able to get higher promotion notwithstanding having rendered certain years of service and, therefore, the benefits flowing from such circular cannot be conferred on the teachers of pri-vately managed schools, but on examining the circular dated 8.2.1994, which was annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that it relates to a higher scale of pay and, therefore, in our consid-ered opinion, the concession of the state counsel before the High Court was well founded and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court proceeding on the basis of the afore-said concession. This Court in Haryana Adhyapak Sangh’s case (supra) has unequivocally indicated that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same scale and dearness allowance as teachers of government schools. In Rajpal Sharma’s case (supra), the same principle has been reiterated. That being the position, the conclusion of the High Court that the teachers of the private schools would be entitled to the benefits of the circular dated 8.2.1994 is unassailable and we, therefore, sustain that part of the conclusion of the impugned judgment.
5. Coming, however, to the question as to whether the benefits given to the government employees under the circulars dated 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, and 7.1.1994 which were annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in granting the benefits of those circulars to the employees of private schools. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Om Prakash Kaushal & Ors. ((1996) 5 SCC 325), a bench of this Court examined the question as to what is the true meaning of “parity in employment” and ultimately came to the conclusion that all incentives granted to the employees of the government cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the employee under private management, as that would not be within the expression “parity in employment”. The Court unequivocally said that the scale of pay and the dearness allowance to a government servant or the teacher of a government school can be claimed as a matter of right by the teachers of a private school and not other in-centives which the government might be intending to confer on its own employees. This being the position and on examining the aforesaid three circulars which were annexed as P-3, P-4 and P-6 in the writ petition filed before the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in grant-ing the benefit of those circulars also to the teachers of the privately managed schools. We, therefore, set aside that part of the conclusion in the impugned judgment.
6. In course of arguments, Mr. Anand, appearing for the State of Haryana, placed before us the subsequent rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in support of his contention that even the so-called pay-scale granted by the circular dated 8.2.1994 would not be available to the teachers of the private schools. We, however, do not express any opinion as to the effect of the aforesaid rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and parties should work-out remedies available to them under the said rules.
7. In the aforesaid premises, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the State of Haryana are directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The dispute centres round the question whether the teachers of pri-vately managed recognised aided schools would be entitled to the benefits which the government had conferred by issuing circulars at different point of time. In this batch of cases we are con-cerned with four such circulars, i.e. circulars dated 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, 7.1.1994 and 8.2.1994. Out of these four circulars, the first two circulars appear to have been issued as an incentive to the employees of the Government of Haryana State and the third circular is an interim relief granted to them while the matter of revision of pay was under consideration before the Pay Commis-sion. The fourth circular dated 8.2.1994 is a higher scale of pay to the teachers of the Government schools in Haryana on certain contingencies. When the teachers of the privately managed schools filed the writ petition before the High Court, the state did not file any counter affidavit. In course of arguments before the High Court the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana conceded that the circular dated 8.2.1994, which had been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, is a matter relating to the scale of pay of the teachers. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, relying upon the earli-er decisions of this Court in the cases of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (JT 1988 (3) SC 172), State of Haryana & Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma & Ors. (JT 1996 (6) SC 710) as well as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1990 (Supp.) SCC 306), came to the conclusion that the teachers of the privately managed schools would be entitled to all the benefit emanating from the aforesaid four circulars which were undoubtedly meant only for the government servants in the State of Haryana.
3. Assailing, the aforesaid judgment in these appeals, Mr. Mahen-dra Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, vehemently contends that the decisions of this Court on which the High Court has relied upon, clearly envisage that there should be a parity in the scale of pay and the dearness allow-ance, but other incentives, which are granted to the government servants or teachers of Government schools, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the form of parity by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. According to Mr. Anand, all the aforesaid four circulars were in the nature of incentives to the government servants to ameliorate the grievances of stagnation at a particular stage and, therefore, the High Court was in error in granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the decisions of this Court in the cases referred to above, the conclusion is irresistible that the teachers of private schools would be entitled to the same scale of pay and other allowances. According to Mr. Kalra, the aforesaid circulars, in fact, are in the nature of a higher scale of pay and not as an incentive, as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the state.
4. Be it stated that even though no counter affidavit had been filed by the state in the High Court and a concession was made by the counsel appearing for the state, stating that the circular dated 8.2.1994 is in relation to the scale of pay of a teacher, in the special leave petitions filed in this Court by the state, no ground had been taken that no such concession had been made. Though in course of hearing of these appeals, Mr. Anand vehe-mently contended that the concession on a question of law should not bind the state in assailing that concession in this Court and further the circular dated 8.2.1994 is in the nature of a stag-nation/promotion policy intended for those employees who have not been able to get higher promotion notwithstanding having rendered certain years of service and, therefore, the benefits flowing from such circular cannot be conferred on the teachers of pri-vately managed schools, but on examining the circular dated 8.2.1994, which was annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that it relates to a higher scale of pay and, therefore, in our consid-ered opinion, the concession of the state counsel before the High Court was well founded and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court proceeding on the basis of the afore-said concession. This Court in Haryana Adhyapak Sangh’s case (supra) has unequivocally indicated that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same scale and dearness allowance as teachers of government schools. In Rajpal Sharma’s case (supra), the same principle has been reiterated. That being the position, the conclusion of the High Court that the teachers of the private schools would be entitled to the benefits of the circular dated 8.2.1994 is unassailable and we, therefore, sustain that part of the conclusion of the impugned judgment.
5. Coming, however, to the question as to whether the benefits given to the government employees under the circulars dated 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, and 7.1.1994 which were annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in granting the benefits of those circulars to the employees of private schools. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Om Prakash Kaushal & Ors. ((1996) 5 SCC 325), a bench of this Court examined the question as to what is the true meaning of “parity in employment” and ultimately came to the conclusion that all incentives granted to the employees of the government cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the employee under private management, as that would not be within the expression “parity in employment”. The Court unequivocally said that the scale of pay and the dearness allowance to a government servant or the teacher of a government school can be claimed as a matter of right by the teachers of a private school and not other in-centives which the government might be intending to confer on its own employees. This being the position and on examining the aforesaid three circulars which were annexed as P-3, P-4 and P-6 in the writ petition filed before the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in grant-ing the benefit of those circulars also to the teachers of the privately managed schools. We, therefore, set aside that part of the conclusion in the impugned judgment.
6. In course of arguments, Mr. Anand, appearing for the State of Haryana, placed before us the subsequent rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in support of his contention that even the so-called pay-scale granted by the circular dated 8.2.1994 would not be available to the teachers of the private schools. We, however, do not express any opinion as to the effect of the aforesaid rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and parties should work-out remedies available to them under the said rules.
7. In the aforesaid premises, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
