Andhra Pradesh Special Teachers, Special Language Pandits & Special Physical Education Teachers Forum rep
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1987
Petitioner: Andhra Pradesh Special Teachers, Special Language Pandits & Special Physical Education Teachers Forum represented by Mrs. Vares Satyavathi & Ors.
Respondent: State of A.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1987
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 09, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE
Equal pay for equal work
Petitioner were special teachers under a scheme to impart basic education – Claim for same pay as given to teachers in the service of the State – Held that it was not a fit case where the principle of equal pay for equal work should be applied.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Issue rule nisi. Since parties have filed their affidavits and other documents, the matter is taken up for final hearing with their consent.
2. Petitioner are special teachers under a scheme intended to impart basic education. Initially there were 16,738 special teachers; later on 4,306 Hindi Pandits were also appointed under the scheme. Special teachers under the scheme are paid a salary of Rs.398/- per month which works out 3/4th of the basic pay of the regular teachers. They are being given certain other privileges like casual leave, vacation wages and maternity leave benefits in case of lady teachers. Their seniority inter so is also maintained. Out of about 21,000 special teachers by now 9,280 teachers have already been regularised.
3. Petitioners’ claim equal pay for equal work by contending that they are teachers in the same way as other teachers in the service of the State and no distinction should be made and they should not be discriminated.
4. Return has been made by the State of Andhra Pradesh disclosing the fact that this was conceived as a special scheme and the nature of the job as also the conditions of service are not indeed same as those of regular school teachers, though teaching is the common factor. It is contended that the State Government intends to regularise all these teachers in course of time depending upon availability of vacancies, either in the regular schools or under other special schemes. As an instance, it has been pointed out that the Union Government has agreed to sponsor a scheme named as Operation Black Board which is fully financed by the Union of India and it is submitted that there would be scope to absorb 1700 teachers immediately on regular basis. It is stated that as and when such scheme come, vacancies would be filled up out of these special teachers. The learned Advocate General has stated that within a period of three years this process would be completed.
5. In the special circumstances indicated, we do not think this is a fit case where the principle of equal pay for equal work should be applied. If it is made so, the scheme itself is bound to collapse and what has been intended to be a mode to educate the illiterates in the society will fail. We would not accordingly issue any writ or direction and dispose of the writ petition by recording the assurance of the learned Advocate General that within three years at the most, the services of these special teachers would be regularised.
6. A sum of Rs.398/- per month is certainly a very inadequate income for a teacher. We commend to the Government to enhance it by fixing a minimum of Rs.500/- per month.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Issue rule nisi. Since parties have filed their affidavits and other documents, the matter is taken up for final hearing with their consent.
2. Petitioner are special teachers under a scheme intended to impart basic education. Initially there were 16,738 special teachers; later on 4,306 Hindi Pandits were also appointed under the scheme. Special teachers under the scheme are paid a salary of Rs.398/- per month which works out 3/4th of the basic pay of the regular teachers. They are being given certain other privileges like casual leave, vacation wages and maternity leave benefits in case of lady teachers. Their seniority inter so is also maintained. Out of about 21,000 special teachers by now 9,280 teachers have already been regularised.
3. Petitioners’ claim equal pay for equal work by contending that they are teachers in the same way as other teachers in the service of the State and no distinction should be made and they should not be discriminated.
4. Return has been made by the State of Andhra Pradesh disclosing the fact that this was conceived as a special scheme and the nature of the job as also the conditions of service are not indeed same as those of regular school teachers, though teaching is the common factor. It is contended that the State Government intends to regularise all these teachers in course of time depending upon availability of vacancies, either in the regular schools or under other special schemes. As an instance, it has been pointed out that the Union Government has agreed to sponsor a scheme named as Operation Black Board which is fully financed by the Union of India and it is submitted that there would be scope to absorb 1700 teachers immediately on regular basis. It is stated that as and when such scheme come, vacancies would be filled up out of these special teachers. The learned Advocate General has stated that within a period of three years this process would be completed.
5. In the special circumstances indicated, we do not think this is a fit case where the principle of equal pay for equal work should be applied. If it is made so, the scheme itself is bound to collapse and what has been intended to be a mode to educate the illiterates in the society will fail. We would not accordingly issue any writ or direction and dispose of the writ petition by recording the assurance of the learned Advocate General that within three years at the most, the services of these special teachers would be regularised.
6. A sum of Rs.398/- per month is certainly a very inadequate income for a teacher. We commend to the Government to enhance it by fixing a minimum of Rs.500/- per month.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
