PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/1998 BENCH: M. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Misra, J.
The common question raised in the aforesaid appeals is,
whether the respondents, who were primary school teachers
under the Dandakaranaya Development Project (hereinafter
referred to as `DDP’), under the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Rehabilitations, Government of India, in the
relevant period would be entitled to the higher pay scale as
per the recommendations of the National Commission on
Teachers headed by Professor D.P. Chatopadhya (hereinafter
referred to as “National Commission”) in terms of the
circular dated 12th August, 1987 issued by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development, Department of Education. The
appellants denied such claim as the aforesaid circular
applies only to the teachers of the schools under the Union
Territories (expect Chandigarh) including Government aided
schools and organisations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and Central Tibetian Schools Administration etc. The claim
of the respondents was allowed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as
`Tribunal’) upholding the contention of respondents and
directing the appellants to pay at the revised scale with
effect from 1st January, 1986 in line with the Railway
Ministry’s circular dated 11th April, 1988 or the aforesaid
HRD Ministry’s circular dated 12th August, 1987 and also
give consequential refixation of the pay under the rules.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals are filed
by the Union of India and others.
To appreciate the controversy, we refer to short facts.
The respondents were initially appointed as primary school
teachers under the DDP as aforesaid in the Ministry of Home
Affairs from the year 1966 onwards. They have been posted at
the various primary schools. They have been posted at the
various primary schools under the said project. As a result
of policy decision by the Central Government, it was decided
on the 1st April, 1986 to handover all the aforesaid schools
under the DDP to the State Governments and any teachers and
other employees rendered surplus were taken on roll of
Central Surplus Staff Cell of the department of Personnel
and Training vide order dated 28th April, 1986. In pursuance
of this, respondents were transferred to the aforesaid
surplus staff cell with effect from 1st April, 1986.
Thereafter they were re-deployed in the various departments
and offices of the Central Government consequently were
relieved from the surplus cell with effect from 22nd
September, 1986 onwards to join the new postings in various
non-teaching cadres. This is not in dispute that these
respondents while working as teachers earlier were given pay
scale of Rs. 226-400 with effect from 1st January, 1973 as
per the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission which was
subsequently revised on the basis of the 4th Pay Commission
and were paid in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from
1st January, 1986. The grievance of the respondents is that
they have not been given the benefit of the recommendations
of the National Commission of the teachers by the aforesaid
Chatopadhya Committee. The said report was accepted by the
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of
Eduction, which is evident from the circular dated 12th
August, 1987, through which higher pay scale to school
teachers were made admissible. As this report was given
effect from 1st January, 1986, the respondents claim the
benefit as they were factually working on this date as
primary school teachers under the aforesaid DDP.
The appellants denying this claim submits that this
circular is not applicable to the teachers working under
DDP. The National Commission report is applicable only to
such departments which have accepted its report. The
reliance placed by the respondents only refers to the
acceptance by the Defence and Railway department and not
Home Ministry under which aforesaid DDP was working.
Further, since education being a state subject under the
legislative entry under the Constitution and the schools
under DDP having been transferred to the State Government
concerned, teachers under it would be benefitted when the
State Government accepts the report. The said report was
accepted specifically only for the Union Territories as it
is also evident by the aforesaid circular dated 12th August,
1987. It is further submitted that on the date of the said
circular there could not be any consideration for the
primary school teachers under DDP as the very institution
under DDP, was no more in existence, stood transferred to
the State Governments.
The National Commission recommended the following pay scales
for the primary school teachers :-
Primary School Teachers : Rs. 1200-2040/-
Senior Scale (After 12 years) : Rs. 1400-2600/-
Selection Scale (After 12 years
in senior scale and attainment of
qualifications laid down for
TGTs) : Rs. 1640-2900/-
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr., Subba Rao,
submits that the respondents were neither Government
servants nor the National Commission report is applicable to
all the teachers.
We will revert back to this last submission but before
it, we refer to the latter No. 1028/A/W/(School) dated 15th
March, 1989, of Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board.
The relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-
“Sanction of President has been
received under Ministry of Defence
letter quoted above, addressed to
Ordnance Factory Board copy to all
concerned ordnance Fys. among
others regarding the application of
revised scales of pay, teaching
allowance and special allowance as
sanctioned in Ministry of Human
Resources Development (Department
of education) letter No, F. 5-
180/86-UT-I dated 12.8.1987 (based
on the recommendation of the
National Commission on Teachers
under the Chairmanship of Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhya enclosed with the
above letter to the teachers of
Ordnance Factory Schools.”
Similarly another letter No. E(P&A) I.87/PS.5.PE.5,
dated 11th January, 1988 of Railway Board. The relevant
portion is quoted hereunder :
“Sub :- Revision of pay scales of
school teachers.
The Ministry of Railways have
on the recommendations of the
National Commission on Teachers,
under the Chairmanship of Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhyay, decided that
the revised (4th Pay Commission)
scales and selection Grades for
teachers on the Railways should be
further revised as in the Annexure
attached.
2.———————————
–
3. The revised pay scales,
Teaching Allowance and special
Allowance and special Allowance
will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
The arrears of pay for the period
from 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1986, which
will accrue over and above the
arrears of pay consequent upon the
introduction of the revised scales
of pay on the recommendations of
the 4th Pay Commission, vide this
Ministry’s letter No. PC-
IV/86/IMP/Schedule/1 dated
24.9.1986, shall be deposited in
the provident fund accounts of the
employees. Amendments to the
Railway service (revised pay)
Rules, 1986, regulating the
fixation of pay in the newly
introduced scales will follow
separately.”
The aforesaid two letters indicate, so far the
departments of Defence and the Railway adopted the pay
scales as recommended by the aforesaid National Commission,
which was over and above the 4th Pay Commission. It is also
significant that the acceptance of the said report is with
effect from 1st January, 1986 which is in consonance with
the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987.
Now, reverting to the aforesaid last submission, we
find that the appellant itself has accepted respondents as
Government servants and gave them the scales as recommended
both by the 3rd and the 4th Central Pay Commission. When the
4th Central Pay Commission came, Government was aware of the
aforesaid National Commission, hence, the scale of the 4th
Pay Commission granted to the teachers was as an interim
measure till recommendation of the National Commission. This
fact is also evident from the aforesaid circular dated 12th
August, 1987. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder :
“I am directed to say that the
National Commission on Teachers’
under the Chairmanship or Prof.
D.P. Chattopadhyay has made various
recommendations concerning pay and
services conditions of teachers at
school level, pending Government’s
decision on the report of National
Commission on Teachers the Fourth
Central Pay Commission only
recommended the replacement scales
for school teachers. Accordingly,
these pay scales were implemented
vide Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure)’s
Notification No. F. 15(1)-IC-/86
dated 13th September, 1986 and 22nd
September, 1986. Subsequently, it
was clarified that the revised
scales of pay for different grades
of teachers are based only on the
recommendations of the fourth
Central Pay Commission, that
decision on the recommendation of
National Commission on Teachers is
yet to be taken and that to be done
as soon as possible.
2. In partial modification of
finance Ministry’s Notification No.
F15(1)/IC/86 dated 13th September,
1986 and 22nd September, 1986, by
which replacement scales were given
to school teachers, it has now been
decided that the revised pay scales
of school teachers in all Union
Territories (Except Chandigarh)
including Government aided school
and organisation like Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Central
Tibetan Schools Administration etc.
will be as under.”
Next repelling the contention for the appellants that
Chattopadhya Committee report is not applicable to all the
teachers, Shri Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondents, placed before u s the relevant portion
of the aforesaid report of the National Commission to show
that the said report was not confined nor was constituted
for any specified Territory, State or Union or class of
teachers but was wide enough to include all facets of all
classes of teachers in the entire territory of this country.
He placed the book `The Teacher And Society’ containing
report of the National Commission on Teachers – I, 1983-85.
Page 89 gives the resolution of the Government of India,
Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education)
to constitute National Commission on Teachers. Under that
two National Commissions were set up to advise the
Government on various aspects relevant to the teaching
community as specified in terms of reference. The National
Commission No.1 was to deal with the issues relating to the
teachers at the school stage and the National Commission
No.2 to deal with the issues relating tot he teachers at the
higher education level (including technical education).
Broadly, the terms of reference included to lay down the
objectives for the teaching profession with reference to the
search for excellence, breadth of vision and cultivation of
values in keeping with the country’s heritage and ideals of
democracy, secularism and social justice. To suggest
measures for fostering dynamism in the profession and
attracting and retaining talented persons in the teaching
profession. To recommend measures to enhance the role of
teachers in facilitating, motivating and inspiring students
in the acquisition of knowledge, skills and values and
promoting them through the spread of the scientific temper,
secular outlook, environmental consciousness and civic
responsibility. Also the adequacy of arrangements for
promotion of teachers’ welfare with special reference to the
National Foundation of Teachers Welfare and to suggest
modifications wherever necessary.
Chapter 1 page 1 of the report shows that the
Commission and its members visited 21 State Capitals and few
other districts and discussed the matter with leaders and
senior officials of the Government and also visited selected
institutions to make on the spot assessment. At page 26 it
reveals under para 5.16 that the Commission dealt with
primary teachers and referred to the bad condition of the
primary school teachers. The Commission also recorded at
para 5.23 :-
“The Commission feels that a stage
has been reached in the development
of education in this country, when
a bold decision must be taken in
favour of replacing the present
jungle of salary scales for
teachers and educational
administrators by composite running
scales (See Appendix
XIII(xvi)……………………..
….”
At para 5.25 it records as under :-
“As an illustration of the kind of
running scale, we have in mind we
would suggest a scale beginning
with Rs.500 as the starting salary
of a primary teacher and ending
with Rs. 3950 as the maximum of the
grade for the State Director of
Education.”
Then, page 92 gives the summary of the recommendations
which clearly reveals that the Commission has dealt with the
subject with national goal, the role of the teachers under
Chapter II, towards a new design of education under Chapter
III, Social justice : Universalisation of elementary
education under Chapter IV, the status, working conditions
and welfare of the teacher under Chapter V, supply and
recruitment of teachers under Chapter VI and the training of
teachers under Chapter VII, etc. After perusing the
`National Commission Report’, apart from its very name,
there can be no doubt that its recommendations are neither
confined to any specific Territory nor only for the Union
Territory, but was actually for the whole country.
Further, this fact is also borne out from the question
and answer in the Parliament placed by the appellants
themselves in one of the aforesaid appeals, which reveals
the concern of the Parliament about its implementation apart
from the Union territory. The relevant portion of the said
question and answer is also reproduced below :-
Q. “Will the Minister of Human
Resources Development (a) Whether
Union Government have issued any
directives to the States for giving
uniform pay scales to the teachers
throughout the country as
recommended by Chattopadhyay
Commission;————————
————-?
Ans. Keeping in view the
recommendations of the NCT-I, the
Fourth Central Pay Commission and
National Policy on Education, the
pay scales for teachers in the
Union Territories have been revised
by the Government. For the teachers
in the States, the Government have
their own mechanism for
periodically revising the pay
scales and related service
conditions. It is for the State
Governments concerned to suitably
revise the pay scales applicable to
their teachers. The report of NCT-I
has been forwarded to all State
Government for appropriate action.”
In other words, it reveals Government’s total
acceptance of the report of the National Commission and, in
turn, to pay the same scales to its teachers and the
acceptance was not confined to the Union Territory but
included the concerned State Governments.
Next question is whether the respondents, who were
teachers on the relevant date, were Government servants or
not? The stand of the appellant that they are not. is not
sustainable. This is evident even by the letter dated 16th
September, 1985 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department
of Home Affairs (Rehabilitation Division) Dandakaranaya
Development Authority, Office of Zonal Administrator which
contains Office Order No. 528/85 which records the following
:-
“Consequent on promotion to the post of untrained
Graduate Teacher from Asstt. Teacher, the pay of
Shri……. has been fixed at Rs. 350/- with effect
from 9.1.1984 with date of next increment on
9.1.1985/1.1.1985—————as per pay fixation
statement given below :-
PAY FIXATION STATEMENT
1. Name of the Govt. Servant : Sri Nirmal Kr. Mandal
2. Post held and scale of pay : Asstt. Teacher Rs. 260-6
-290-EB-6-326-B-366-EB-B
-390-10-400/-
3. Date of promotion as U.G.
Teacher : 9.1.1984 Forenoon
Admittedly, like respondents the aforesaid letter also
refers to one of the Assistant Teachers who was promoted to
the post of untrained graduate teacher in the same
Dandakaranaya Development Authority and the Government
itself describes such teachers as Government servant. We
also find DDS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990
which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and in
supersession of the redeployment of Surplus Staff against
vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts (Group
`C’) Rules, 1967, the Redeployment of Surplus Staff against
vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts (Group
`D’) Rules, 1970, the redeployment of Surplus Staff against
vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts (Groups
`A’ and `B’) Rules, 1986, and the Redeployment of Surplus
Staff in the Central Civil Services and Posts
(Supplementary) Rules, 1989. This was framed for regulating
redeployment and re-adjustment of surplus staff against
vacancies in the Central Civil Services and Posts. Rule 2
(g) defines `surplus staff’ and `surplus employee or
employees’, to mean the Central Civil servants (other than
those employed on ad hoc, casual, work-charged or contract
basis) and Rule 2 (g)(b) (3) refers to such employees who
have been rendered surplus along with the post from the
Ministries, offices of the Government of India, as a result
of abolition or winding up either in whole or in part of an
organisation of the Central Government.
In view of the aforesaid letter of the appellant, the
aforesaid rules and the Central Government giving to the
respondents the benefit or the 3rd and the 4th Pay
Commission report, it leaves no room for doubt that the
respondents were and are Government servants and treated as
such.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Subba Rao,
referred to the case of Union of India and Another Vs.
Rajendra Singh Rajput 1997 (10) SCC 426. This case, in our
opinion, does not help the appellants. This was a case where
respondent, a Junior Engineer in Dandakaranaya Project since
29.9.1983, was later transferred being surplus to the
Central Public Works Department and he claimed the higher
pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the ground that Junior
Engineers in the CPWD were getting that scale on the
principle of `equal pay for equal work’. That was upheld and
later Junior Engineers/Section Officers (Horticulture) in
the CPWD who could not be promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 due to non-
availability of vacancies in that grade, was allowed the
scale of Assistant Engineer, that is to say Rs.2000-3500 on
a personal basis after completion of 15 years of total
service but when later, the aforesaid Junior Engineer from
the Dandakaranaya Project also claimed this upgraded scale,
the same was rejected with the following observations :-
“He cannot claim the benefit of
ungraded scale available to Junior
Engineers in CPWD. Moreover, merely
because under order dated 8.8.91,
the respondent was given the pay
scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the basis
of the principle of `equal pay for
equal work` cannot mean that the
respondent is also entitled to
claim the benefit of the upgraded
scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which is
available in CPWD only having
regard to the conditions in that
department and is not applicable to
Junior Engineers in other
departments of the Central
Government. The respondent could
not, therefore, be extended the
benefit of pay scale of Rs. 2000-
3500 on the ground that he has
completed 15 years of service as
Junior Engineer.”
This was a case where claim of Junior Engineer of DDP
against another Junior Engineer in CPWD, who was given
upgraded scale subsequently, was rejected on the facts of
that case which has no application in the present case. The
present case is neither a case of `equal pay for equal work’
nor claim based on parity of another on any upgraded post or
scale. Here the claim is based on their own right under the
said National Commission Report.
The crux of controversy is the justifiability of the
claim of the respondents to receive the benefit of scale of
the difference of pay scale between what was given by the
4th Pay Commission and later enhanced by the National
Commission to the teachers similarly to the class to which
respondents belong. Their claim is confined to the period
between 1st January, 1986 to 1st April, 1986. The
significance of this is that on 1st April, 1986 respondents
were declared as surplus and were gradually absorbed
thereafter in the various Government departments at the same
scale as they were drawing on the said date. That
adjudication of this claim have bearing as it would decide
what pay scale they would be entitled during this period and
in case their absorption at the relevant time was at a lower
scale then they would be entitled at such adjudicated higher
pay scale including consequential increments in accordance
with the rules. Respondents are not claiming any benefit
given to the teachers under the said report after 1st April,
1986. In this regard even the stand of the appellant is not
in doubt. The appellant has accepted that absorption of
respondents to the various Central Government offices were
on posts carrying equal pay scales which they were drawing
at the relevant time. The same is evident from para 5 of the
SLP itself where it records that in the process of winding
up of Dandakaryanya Project, all the educational
institutions rum under it were handed over to the State
Government of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and respondents who
were in excess were declared surplus and rendered to the
Central (Surplus staff) Cell, after allowing them
revised/replacement scales. It is further stated on their
redeployment, they were relieved of their duties from the
DDP for joining in different Central Government offices,
organisations in various posts carrying equivalent pay
scales.
Here the question is, in case the pay scale as given by
the the National Commission is applicable to the respondents
they would be entitled for their higher pay scales at the
relevant time. Admittedly, between 1st January, 1986 and 1st
April, 1986, the respondents were drawing the pay scale as
per the 4th Pay Commission report which was interim in
nature as it awaited pay scale to be given by the National
Pay Commission. If on the relevant date, they are entitled
for the pay scale as per the National Commission report, the
claim of the respondents would succeed, as upheld by the
tribunal as their absorption have not been on this upgraded
pay scale.
For the respondents, strong reliance is placed in the
case Purshottam Lal and others Vs. Union of India and
another, 1973 (1) SCC 651. Relevant portion is quoted
hereunder :-
“Para 15. – Mr. Dhebar contends
that it was for the Government to
accept the recommendations of the
Pay Commission and while doing so
to determine which categories of
employees should be taken to have
been included in the terms of
reference. We are unable to
appreciate this point. Either the
Government has made reference in
respect of all Government employees
or it h as not. But if it has made
a reference in respect of all
Government employees and it accepts
the recommendations it is bound to
implement the recommendations in
respect of all Government
employees. If it does not implement
the report regarding some employees
only it commits a breach of
Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. This is what the
Government has done as far as these
petitioners are concerned.”
Mr. Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel, submits even in
the present case, reference was made to the National
Commission for all classes of teachers comprehensively and
the Central Government has accepted the said report and
applied to all the teachers under it, either under Union
Territory or other departments, referred to above, then
there is no justification for excluding the respondents who
were working as teachers at the relevant time under Central
Government.
Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellants,
referred the case of Union of India and Others Vs.
Secretary, Madras Civil Audit & Accounts Association and
Anr, etc. 1992 (1) SCR 530 to show, though case of
Purshottam Lal (supra) was referred, yet report as a whole
was not implemented. Relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-
“Having given our earnest
consideration we are unable to
agree with the view taken by the
Full Bench of CAT that the
principle of equal pay for equal
work is attracted irrespective of
the fact that the posts were
identified and upgraded in the year
1987. There is no dispute that
after such upgradation, officers in
both the wings who are doing the
equal work are being paid equal
pay. But that cannot be said to be
the situation as well on 1.1.86
also. The learned counsel, however,
submitted that the recommendations
of the Pay Commission should be
accepted as a whole in respect of
all the categories of employees. In
this context he relied on two
decisions of this Court. In
Purshottam Lal and Others V. Union
of India and another, (1973) 1 SCC
651 a question came up whether the
report of the second Pay Commission
did not deal with the case of those
petitioners. It was held thus :
`Either the Government has made
reference in respect of all
Government employees or it has not.
But if it has made a reference in
respect of all Government employees
and it accepted the recommendations
it is bound to implement the
recommendations in respect of all
Government employes. If it does not
implement the report regarding some
employees only it commits a breach
of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. That is what the
Government has done as far as these
petitions are concerned.’
In P. Parmeswaran and Ors. V.
Secretary to the Government of
India, (1987) Suppl. SCC 18 in a
short judgment this Court observed
that because of the administrative
difficulties the Government cannot
deny the benefit of the revised
grade and scale with effect from
January 1, 1973 as in the case of
other person.”
This decision does not dilute the principle as laid
down in the case of Purshottam Lal (supra). In this case,
the appellants submitted that the office memorandum dated
12th June, 1987 was passed on the recommendation of the 4th
Central Pay Commission which consisted of two parts. The
first part recommended corresponding pay scale for the
existing posts in the Accounts Wing giving effect from 1st
January, 1986. The other part was contained in para 11.38.
Pursuant to those recommendations, the Government decided to
implement the same, namely, the second part with effect from
1st April, 1987. The following passage in this case makes it
clear that it has not deviated from the principle as laid
down in Purshottam Lal (supra) but its resultant view was on
the special facts and circumstances of that case.
“There is no dispute that in the
instant case the terms of reference
of Pay Commission applied to all
the categories of Government
servants. But the question is as to
from which date the other category
referred to above namely Assistant
Accounts Officer etc. should get
the higher scales of pay.
Identification of these posts and
the upgradation cannot be treated
as mere administrative
difficulties. The implementation of
the recommendations of the Pay
Commission according to the terms
thereof itself involved this
exercise of creation of posts after
identification which naturally took
some time. Therefore, the above
decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel are of no help to
there respondents.”
The question raised there was, whether two different
dates of the applicability of he same recommendation could
be upheld when the report was accepted by the Government.
This Court held that different dates of applicability was
necessary since the Government in terms of the Pay
Commission recommendation was to create posts after
identification which naturally has to take some time. Hence,
two different dates of its applicability when other posts
were yet to be created in terms of recommendation itself
cannot be said to be bad in law. There is no such fact so
far as the present case is concerned.
For the respondents, reliance was also placed in the
case of Laljee Dubey and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others 1974 (2) SCR 249. Here also the appellants’
contention was that letter dated 17th November, 1953 should
be implemented because Government accepted the
recommendation of `Kalyanwala Committee’. Hence, denial of
its benefit to the appellants is violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. It was submitted there that other checkers
performing duties similar to those of the appellants have
been guaranteed the benefit of the said order. This case
relying on the decision and principle of the Purshottam Lal
(supra) allowed the appeal of the appellants.
After giving our due consideration both to the facts
and the law, which we have referred above, it is not in
dispute that the respondents were teachers working with the
Central Government between 1st January, 1986 an d 1st April,
1986. The Government absorbed them in its various
departments at the same pay scale which they were drawing
then. The Central Government has accepted the National
Commission (Chattopadhyay Committee) report and gave benefit
to all its teachers working in the Union Territory and some
of its departments and that all the States in India have
also accepted the same. The documents on record also
reveals, apart from the teachers working in the Union
Territory, Central Government approved other teachers
working in some other departments. The pith and substance
and spirit of the reply at the Parliament indicates at least
Central Government’s total acceptance for all its teachers
to whom the said report was applicable. The appellant,
namely, Union of India, has not brought on record anything
to the contrary to show the exclusion of respondents from
giving the said benefit on the relevant date, as were given
to all the teachers, who were placed in the same position as
the respondents. The only argument advanced was, not on the
basis on any record but as submission that since the
institutions under DDP were handed over to the States of
Orissa and Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January, 1986 and that
not being in existence, respondents having been taken as
surplus and were in due time absorbed in the various
departments, the benefit of the increase in pay scale as
recommended by the National Commission was not given to
them. Apart from the fact that t here is nothing on the
record to show even this reasoning for declining the said
claim, we find even otherwise, this submission has no
merits. The respondents are not claiming all or other
benefits which were given and to be received in future to
the teachers but confining their claim to the period when,
admittedly, they were teachers and all the teachers
irrespective of the fact that they were taken by the State
Government or with the Central Government were given that
benefit. If that be so, there could be no justifiable reason
to exclude that benefit to the respondents.
It is always possible to exclude any class based on
reasonable classification to the benefit under any policy
decision, the classification having direct nexus with the
object sought to be achieved. But in the present case, in
the absence of any material placed, we do not find any such
so far the respondents are concerned. Reading that would be
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In the present case, we find that the Government has stoutly
supported the recommendations and the same is said to have
been implemented in the Union Territories and some of its
departments. There is nothing to show that there were other
departments in which similar teachers were employed but such
benefit was not given. In fact, all the departments of the
Central Government could not have teachers. Nothing to show
apart from cases of respondents that any other class of
teachers in the Central Government departments were
excluded. In fact, on the contrary, we find the aforesaid
letter dated 12th August, 1987 is from the Education
Department viz. the Human Resources Department which is the
parent department under which all teachers fall and was
issued after concurrence of Department of Finance. Thus, the
stand of the appellants that they were not considered as
institution under DDP itself stood transferred or for the
lack of either consideration or lack of approval cannot be
accepted. This apart, we find the aforesaid letter dated
12th August, 1987 in its second para while approving the
sanction records it to the following :
“…………..all Union
Territories (except Chandigarh)
including Government aided schools
and organisations like Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Calcutta
Tibetan Schools Administration etc.
will be as under.”
The use of words “organisations like” and the word
“etc.” indicate similar other organisations, institutions
etc. the same was not exhaustive. In consideration to this,
we conclude and include t he teachers who were working in
DDP as the respondents. We further conclude, if for the
aforesaid reasons, their claims were not considered, this
non-consideration of their this legitimate claim, when all
such belonging to that class received at the relevant date,
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
In our considered opinion respondents are entitled to
receive the benefit of the recommendation of the National
Pay Commission. We further conclude, in every case so far as
the Central Government is concerned, to give benefit of the
National Pay Commission to its teachers from 1st January,
1986, th e respondents are also entitled to receive the same
benefit under it from the same date.
For the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded
herein before, we do not find any merit in these appeals.
These appeals are accordingly dismissed. Cost on the
parties.