Neelam Raizada & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Women Welfare & Child Dev. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 431/1997
Petitioner: Neelam Raizada & Ors.
Respondent: Secretary, Women Welfare & Child Dev. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 431/1997
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136, 14 – Equal pay for equal work – Anganwadi training principal and instructors – If entitled to same pay scale and allowances as the postgraduate teachers in central government or Delhi administration. Held, No. However, in view of the letter dated 27.4.92 of the government appellants allowed appropriate allowances. (Pars 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellants before us were employed in the establishment of the first respondent as Anganwadi training principal and Anganwadi training instructors. The first appellant worked from 23.5.1983 to 14.8.1995, appellant no. 2 from 7.1.1989 to 17.1.1996, appellant no. 3 from 5.11.1987 to 5.10.1997 and appellant no. 4 from 23.5.1987 to 1.12.1997.
2. They laid claim in a writ petition before the High Court that they are entitled to same pay and allowances of postgraduate teachers under the central government and Delhi administration on the basis that they were performing similar duties and functions.
3. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Anganwadi is not an instrumentality of the state and it cannot be equated with the central government and it is for the central government to take an appropriate decision whether the benefit of the fourth central pay commission should be made applicable to them or not.
4. We do not find sufficient basis either in the petition or otherwise or the material that has been produced before us that the appellants are entitled to equivalent pay with the teachers working in the central government or in the Delhi administration. Therefore, the decision taken by the government that they will not be able to revise the pay scales by giving similar pay as being given to postgraduate teachers, is justified. However, the government itself after having examined the various aspects of the matter, by letter dated 27.4.1992 stated as follows :
“We shall not be able to revise the pay scales of the instructors in Balsevika/Anganwadi workers training centres. But dearness allowances at government rates can be given to them w.e.f. 1.4.1982. To that extent, the grants will be adjusted. DA and ADA at government rates may be substituted in place of the existing rates of dearness allowance and interim relief in ICCW Balsevika/Anganwadi workers training centres w.e.f. 1.4.1982. H.R.A. and C.C.A. should also be according to Government of India rules. Your accountant may collect details of DA/ADA/HRA/CCA from this ministry.”
5. The appellants will, therefore, be entitled to appropriate allowances as is sought to be given to them in terms of the said letter. It is not clear from the averments made by the respondents whether such payments have been made to the appellants or not.
6. In the event of such payments in terms of the letter have not been made, the same shall be made within a period of three months from today. The order of the High Court is modified and the appeal stands allowed in terms as stated above.
1. The appellants before us were employed in the establishment of the first respondent as Anganwadi training principal and Anganwadi training instructors. The first appellant worked from 23.5.1983 to 14.8.1995, appellant no. 2 from 7.1.1989 to 17.1.1996, appellant no. 3 from 5.11.1987 to 5.10.1997 and appellant no. 4 from 23.5.1987 to 1.12.1997.
2. They laid claim in a writ petition before the High Court that they are entitled to same pay and allowances of postgraduate teachers under the central government and Delhi administration on the basis that they were performing similar duties and functions.
3. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Anganwadi is not an instrumentality of the state and it cannot be equated with the central government and it is for the central government to take an appropriate decision whether the benefit of the fourth central pay commission should be made applicable to them or not.
4. We do not find sufficient basis either in the petition or otherwise or the material that has been produced before us that the appellants are entitled to equivalent pay with the teachers working in the central government or in the Delhi administration. Therefore, the decision taken by the government that they will not be able to revise the pay scales by giving similar pay as being given to postgraduate teachers, is justified. However, the government itself after having examined the various aspects of the matter, by letter dated 27.4.1992 stated as follows :
“We shall not be able to revise the pay scales of the instructors in Balsevika/Anganwadi workers training centres. But dearness allowances at government rates can be given to them w.e.f. 1.4.1982. To that extent, the grants will be adjusted. DA and ADA at government rates may be substituted in place of the existing rates of dearness allowance and interim relief in ICCW Balsevika/Anganwadi workers training centres w.e.f. 1.4.1982. H.R.A. and C.C.A. should also be according to Government of India rules. Your accountant may collect details of DA/ADA/HRA/CCA from this ministry.”
5. The appellants will, therefore, be entitled to appropriate allowances as is sought to be given to them in terms of the said letter. It is not clear from the averments made by the respondents whether such payments have been made to the appellants or not.
6. In the event of such payments in terms of the letter have not been made, the same shall be made within a period of three months from today. The order of the High Court is modified and the appeal stands allowed in terms as stated above.
