DISTRICT LOCAL BOARD Vs. KRISHNA SAKHARAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two points which have been agitated before us by Mr. Coyajee, counsel for the appellants, the District Local Board, E. K. Jalgaon, are (1) that on a true construction of Section 8 (1) and Section 8 (2) and the proviso thereto of the Primary Education Act and Rule 59 of the Rules framed thereunder, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declarations and the other reliefs asked for in the plaint and (2) that the suits were barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 26e, Primary Education Act.

(2.) THE determination of these two questions turns on the construction of the relevant provisions of the Primary Education Act and the relevant rules framed under the power given to the Government in that behalf under Section 27 of the Act. It would be necessary, therefore, in determining each one of these two points to set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(3.) IT was further contended by Mr. Coyajee --and that is the real contention which we have to deal with--that even though the terms and conditions on which the teachers were employed under the Government were to obtain as between these teachers and the local authorities on their being absorbed by the local authorities, Section 8 (2) empowered the local authority to exercise all the powers existing as well as future which were enjoyed by the Provincial Government in respect of those teachers. IT was, therefore, contended that even though the terms and conditions on which these teachers were employed by the Government at the date of their transfer to the local authorities were safeguarded--and these terms and conditions included the attendance allowance which was being paid by the Government to them, which attendance allowance was by virtue of Section 8 (1) of the Act payable by the local authorities to those teachers,--the powers of the Provincial Government in respect of such teachers which vested in and were exercisable by the local authorities by virtue of Section 8 (2) of the Act were absolute. The Provincial Government had power in respect of those teachers to reduce their salaries as well as the allowances in any manner the Government liked even to the extent of reducing them, in a conceivable case, to zero and that, therefore, the local authorities in whom the same powers vested and came to be exercisable were thus entitled to, in their turn, reduce the salaries and, allowances even to zero if they so thought fit. IT was contended that proviso (b) to Section 8 (2) which laid down that the scales of pay and allowances applicable to those teachers at the time at which they were taken over and employed by the local authority were not to be altered without the sanction of the Provincial Government had no application to the facts of the present case, because the step which the District Local Board took in the matter of the discontinuance of the allowances was in exercise of their absolute powers which were vested in them under the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Act. IT was lastly contended that even though it may be taken to be covered by proviso (b) to Section 8 (2) as being an alteration in the scales of pay and allowances by the local authority, the requisite sanction had been obtained by them from the Government and that, therefore, their action in that behalf was perfectly justified. The answer that was given to these contentions raised on behalf of the appellants was this. Under Section 8 (1) of the Act there was an absolute guarantee of the terms and conditions on which these teachers were employed under the Government and these terms and conditions were to continue during the time that they were in the employ of the local authority after the transfer of their services from the Government to the local authority, that Section 8 (2) did not cover the case before us inasmuch as the local authority had no absolute power given to it to discontinue the allowances which were under Section 8 (1) payable by the local authority to these teachers and that in any event even though the sanction of the Government in that behalf was obtained, the case was not covered by proviso (b) to Section 8 (2) because, firstly, it was not a case of alteration of the scales of allowances and, secondly, it was not a case of alteration at all but of dicontinuance of the same altogether. IT was, therefore, contended by Mr. A. G. Desai on behalf of the teachers that the action of the District Local Board in this behalf even though it purported to be sanctioned by the Government was ultra vires, null and void.