UNION OF INDIA Vs. BUOY LAL GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 12/08/1987 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 (except 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 1/01/1986 in line with the Railway Ministry's circular dated 11/04/1988 or the aforesaid HRD Ministry's circular dated 12/08/1987 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.

(2.) 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 under the said project. As a result of policy decision by the Central Government, it was decided on the 1/04/1986 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 28/04/1986. In pursuance of this, respondents were transferred to the aforesaid surplus staff cell with effect from 1/04/1986. Thereafter they were redeployed in the various departments and offices of the Central Government consequently were relieved from the surplus cell with effect from 22/09/1986 onwards to join the new posting in various non-teaching cadres. This is not in dispute that these respondents while working as teachers earlier were given pay scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 1/01/1973 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 1/01/1986. The grievance of the respondents is that they have not been given the benefit of the recommendations of the National Commission for the teachers by the aforesaid Chatopadhya Committee. The said report was accepted by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, which is evident from the circular dated 12/08/1987, through which higher pay scale to school teachers were made admissible. As this report was given effect from 1/01/1986, the respondents claim the benefit as they were factually working on this date as primary school teachers under the aforesaid DDP.

(3.) 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.