STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether language teachers working in the Government Vocational Education Institutes are entitled to the same pay scale as admissible to the lecturers in the Senior Secondary Schools in the State of haryana on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed under clause-X of the Letters patent.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may first be noticed. Respondents 1 & 2 are working as language teachers in the Government Vocational Education Institutes (for short, "the Institute') at Mudlana, District Sonepat and Senk in the District of Karnal, respectively. They are drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- and claim party in the matter of pay scale with lecturers in the school cadre working in the senior secondary Schools in the State of Haryana who are paid salary in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/-. It is alleged that they possess equivalent, if not better, academic qualifications and perform the same type of duties and functions, it is claimed that their job requirements are similar to those of lecturers in the school cadre. It is further alleged that the State of Haryana is the employer of both sets of employees and their working hours being the same, there is no reason why they should not be given the same pay scale as that of the lecturers in the school cadre. When their claim was not accepted by the State Government they approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the necessary relief.

(3.) The State Government while controverting the claim of the respondents herein took the stand that the two sets of employees belong to different departments and that the minimum qualifications required for appointment as lecturer in the school cadre and a language teacher in any institute being different, the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' was not attracted. Comparative table of the minimum qualifications required to be possessed by the two sets of employees as referred to in the written statement filed by the appellant State is as follows:-