SUSHEELA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. Whether the teaching and non-teaching employees of private recognised primary schools are entitled to full salary, all allowances and other benefits as are admissible to their counter parts in the Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad (for short 'parishad'), U. P. is the moot point which arises for consideration and determination in the present two writ petition's, which are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) PUT briefly, the facts of the case are that there is a. Montessori school with the name of,shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal Mandir Madar Gate, Aligarh. The said school is. run and managed by a private body. The said school was recognised in the "year 1962 by the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'digs') which was the competent authority to grant recognition as the Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam has not by that time come into force. The school was brought on the grant-in-aid list by the State in the year 1963 and since then the grant is being released by the State Government for disbursement of the salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff.

(3.) IT appears that the State Govern ment filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court to challenge the order dated 27-11-1991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 17846 of 1988. The S. L. P. , which was numbered as S. L. P. (Civil) 15789 of 1992 was dismissed on 14-1-1993. The State Government moved a review peti tion No. 1245 of 1993 before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 20-7-1993. For quite some time, the State Government did not comply with the order passed by this court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. On 24-8-1993, an order was issued by the State Government asking for detailed accounts of the pay ment of salary and allowances to the teachers so that requisite grants may be released. In the said letter, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition, a refer ence was made to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 as well as to Paragraph 308 of the Education Code. Paragraph 308 of the Education Code reads as follows: "308. The annual gram shall not exceed the difference between the approved annual cost of maintenance and the approved income of the institution from fees and private sources or half the annual cost of the maintenance, whichever is less. " The effect of the aforesaid Govern ment order was that in view of the provisions of Paragraph 308 of the Educa tion Code, only half salary of the teachers of the Montessori Schools was to be paid/reimbursed by the Government while under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975, full salary and allowances are payable by the Government to the teachers of the Basic Schools. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government has failed to implement the judgment of this court as affirmed by the Supreme Court though it is duty bound to pay full salary to the petitioners as is being paid to the teachers and employees of the Basic Schools run and maintained by the Parishad in view of provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975; that recourse to Paragraph 308 of the Education Code, which is merely in the form of executive instructions cannot be taken and, therefore, there is no justifica tion to withhold half salary of the petitioners by the State Government by invoking the provisions of Paragraph 308 of the Code. IT is, there for, prayed that the respondents be commanded to pay full salary to the petitioners, as is being paid to the teachers and other employees of the Basic Schools run and maintained by Parishad w. e. f. 1986-87 till date and in fu ture as and when it accrues.