PRADIP KUMAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners were working as teachers in the school set up by Dandakaranya Development Authority. In the year 1985-86 the government decided to hand over those schools to the state administration and the surplus employees working therein were transferred to the personnel department of the Central Government and thereafter redeployed in various departments of the State Government. During this period the Central Government set up a commission for examining the terms and conditions of teachers working throughout the country and for setting up uniform scale of pay for them. Professor D. P. Chattopadhyay commission ultimately in April, 1986 submitted their final report, wherein certain financial benefits were given to the teachers. The disputes arose, as to whether the teachers working under Dandakaranya Development Authority would be entitled to avail the benefits of the recommendation of the commission. The matter went up to the Apex Court level. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Bijoy Lal Ghosh & Ors. reported in JT 98 Vol. II SC Page 318, observed that since the teachers working under the authority were declared surplus and were transferred firstly to the personnel department to the Central Government and thereafter redeployed in various departments of the Government they would be entitled to the benefit as according to the Apex Court as on the effective date being January 1, 1986 they were teachers and were entitled to the said benefit.

(2.) If we look to paragraph 2 of the said decision, it would appear that the teachers of subject group were declared surplus and they were taken on roll of Central Surplus Staff Cell under the personnel department vide order dated April 28, 1986 and they were transferred to the personnel department with effect from April 1, 1986 and consequently, they were redeployed in various departments with effect from September 22, 1986. The concerned writ petitioners in that case thereafter joined their respective departments on or after September 22, 1986. In that backdrop, the Apex Court observed that as on January 1, 1986 those writ petitioners should have been considered as teachers and the benefits under the commission report should be extended to them. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment being relevant herein for the purpose is quoted below:

(3.) On a plain reading of the paragraph quoted (supra) it would appear that the Apex court observed that the report would apply to the teachers to whom the said report was applicable. The Apex Court also observed that the concerned writ petitioners were teachers on the relevant date (01.01.1986) irrespective of the fact that they were taken by the State Government or the Central Government subsequently and it Would not be justified to exclude them from the benefits available under the report of the commission.