CHAMPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are all employees of privately-managed Government-aided schools in the State of Haryana. It is stated that prior to 1967, there was considerable disparity in the emoluments of teachers employed in Government schools vis-a-vis the teachers in privately managed Government-aided schools in the State and to remove this disparity, the Government appointed a Commission, called the Kothari Commission to examine the conditions of service of teachers with the overall objective of improving the standard of education in the country. The Kothari Commission in its report recommended that the pay-scale of school teachers belonging to the similar categories though working under different managements such as Government, local bodies or private organisations, should be placed at par. The recommendations of the Kothari Commission were accepted by the State of Haryana and the revised scales suggested by the Kothari Commission were made effective in the State with effect from Ist December, 1987. The pay-scales of teachers in Government schools in the State of Haryana were revised in the year 1979, but in the case of teachers in privately-managed Government-aided schools, the revision was made effective from the year 1981. Aggrieved by this discriminatory attitude of the State Government, the Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5353 of 1984 claiming parity with the teachers in Government schools in the matter of pay-scales and other emoluments i.e. dearness allowance, house rent allowance etc. This petition was dismissed by this Court on 21st February, 1985. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 23667 of 1988 and vide its judgment dated 28th July, 1988 reported as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana and others, 1988 AIR(SC) 1663 the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to maintain parity in the pay-scales and dearness allowances of the teachers working in privately-managed Government-aided schools vis-a- vis the Government schools. It appears that the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above was not being implemented on which the Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh again approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Misc. Application No. 15049 of 1989 pointing out that the aforesaid judgment had not been implemented and the instalments of dearness allowance which had, in the meanwhile, become available, had also not been paid. This matter too was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 21st February, 1990 reported as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 968 with the direction that the pay-scales of teachers of Government-aided schools should be revised so as to bring them at par with the pay-scales of teachers of Government schools with effect from April 1, 1979 and an interim arrangement as to how the emoluments were to be paid was also incorporated in the judgment. The State of Haryana thereafter issued a Notification dated 14th May, 1991 (Annexure P.3) to the writ petition providing for the grant of additional increment after 10 and 20 years of service to Group 'C' and 'D' employees, such as the petitioners. This was a benefit in addition to the annual increments that were due on the pay-scales. The petitioners were accordingly granted this additional benefit as well. The State Government thereafter issued another Notification dated 7th August, 1992, Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, whereby the interim relief of additional increments was made available on completion of 8 and 18 years of service instead of 10 and 20 years of service as had been laid down in the earlier Notification dated 14th May, 1991 (Annecure P-3). The Notification Annexure P.4 was also implemented qua the petitioners. The State Government thereafter decided to grant an interim relief of Rs. 100/- to the employees in the State of Haryana and a Notification to this effect was also issued on 17th January, 1994 (Annexure P.6). Vide Annexure P/6A, the benefit of this Notification was granted to the employees of Government-aided colleges in the State of Haryana. but this was not made applicable in the case of employees of Government-aided schools. The State Government thereafter issued yet another Notification dated 8th February, 1994, Annexure P.7 to the writ petition which was made applicable to Group 'C' and 'D' categories of employees in the State Government providing that on completion of 10 or more or 20 years of regular and satisfactory service, a higher pay-scale was to be made available. It is the claim of the petitioners that almost all the petitioners were eligible for this benefit as well. The State Government appears to have had some rethinking on the matter and vide order dated 13th January, 1995, Annexure P.8 to the writ petition, it withdrew the benefits conferred on the petitioners by Annexures P.3 and P.4 and also sought recovery of the amounts that had been disbursed to them. The petitioners thereafter filed a representation before the authorities and pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, this benefit could not be denied to them. As no action was taken on this representation, the present writ petition has been filed. A reply has been put in on behalf of the State and the stand taken is that the benefit of the Notifications Annexures P.3 and P. 4 was to be given only to teachers working in Government schools as an incentive on account of the fact that they were not getting any promotion despite having put in long years of service and that the interim relief had already been granted by the government vide order dated 17th January, 1994, Annexure P.6 to the writ petition. It was further pleaded that the directions of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh's case had been fully carried out and the parity between the Government employees and employees of Government-aided schools insofar as pay-scales and dearness allowance were concerned, had been maintained.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments cited at the Bar. Mr. Patwalia, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that a similar matter had come to this Court in the case of Gulshan Lal Aul & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1995 1 SCT 304 CWP No. 876 of 1988 decided on 24.3.1994 : (P&H) and it had been observed by the Division Bench that in the light of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 hereinafter called the 'Act'), the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh's case and the Government Instructions, Annexures P.1 to P.3 pay parity between the teachers of the Government schools and the Privately-Manged Government-aided schools had to be maintained. It appears that this matter was thereafter taken to the Supreme Court by the State of Punjab and the Supreme Court while partly allowing the State Appeal, viz. State of Punjab and others. v. Om Parkash, 1996 4 SCT 302, held that under provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979, which is pari materia with the Act, the parity that was envisaged was only with regard to pay and dearness allowances and the other benefits envisaged by the instructions Annexures P.1 to P.3 could not be automatically conferred on the petitioners. It has accordingly been argued that as far as the question with regard to parity of pay-scales was concerned, the matter stood concluded in favour of the present writ petitioners. Mr. Patwalia has then pointed out that in State of Haryana and others. v. Rajpal Sharma and others, 1996 6 JT 710, a somewhat contrary view had been taken vis-a-vis Gulshan Lal Aul's case and it had been held that the teachers of privately-managed Government-aided schools were entitled to parity not only with regard to pay- scales and dearness allowances but also with regard to other 'privileges' as well. It appears that Gulshan Lal Aul's case though earlier in point of time was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench which decided Rajpal Sharma's case and Mr. Patwalia states that in the light of this fact, a review application had been filed by the respondents in this case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was still pending.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Kapoor, learned AAG for the State has argued that an additional increment was not part of the interim relief or a pay-scale, and, as such, this benefit could not be conferred on the petitioners.