{"id":235436,"date":"1988-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988"},"modified":"2017-07-11T08:11:23","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T02:41:23","slug":"all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","title":{"rendered":"All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 88, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 398<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDEFENCE MINISTER-CUM-CHAIRMAN BOARD OFGOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHO\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR   88\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 398\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 205 JT 1988 (4)\t 22\n 1988 SCALE  (2)868\n\n\nACT:\n    Civil  Services:  Sainik  School  employees--Cannot\t  be\ntreated\t as Central Government employees--Cannot be  treated\non par with employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas.\n%\n    Constitution  of India, 1950: Articles 12,\t14,  39(d)--\n`Sainik\t School Society'--Whether  `State'--Employees  claim\nfor `equal pay for equal work'--Whether tenable.\n    Words and Phrases: `Sainik Schools'--What are.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The All India Sainik Schools Employees Association in  a\npetition  filed\t in  this  Court under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the\nConstitution has asked for a writ of mandamus directing\t the\nrespondents,  primarily, to extend to the employees  working\nin   the  Sainik  Schools all. the  service   benefits\t and\nadvantages  in\tthe same pattern as  obtaining\tin  Kendriya\nVidyalaya  Sangthan. The petitioner's contentions  are\tthat\nthe  Sainik School Society is `State' within the meaning  of\nArticle\t 12  and  is  accordingly  amenable  to\t claim\t and\nenforcement  of\t fundamental rights, and  further  that\t the\nsociety\t has to be guided by what is provided in Part  4  of\nthe  Constitution  by way of Directive Principles  of  State\nPolicy.\n    Disposing of the petition, this Court,\n    HELD: (1) The entire funding of the Sainik Schools is by\nthe  State  Governments\t and  the  Central  Government.\t The\noverall\t control  vests in the\tgovernmental  authority.  It\ncannot\ttherefore be doubted that the Sainik School  Society\nis `State' within the meaning of Article 12. 1405C]\n    (2)\t Once it is held that the Sainik School\t Society  is\n`State',  application of Article 14 is attracted.  Similarly\nunder the Directive Principles, the claim for equal pay\t for\nequal work becomes tenable. [405D]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 398\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 399\n    (3)\t Substantial  contribution for\trunning\t the  Sainik\nSchool comes from the funds of the State where the school is\nlocated.  The Central Government's contribution is  minimal.\nThe  mode  of funding is mainly through scholarship  by\t the\nState  payable to the students. It follows out of this\tfact\nthat the employees of the Sainik School cannot be treated as\nCentral\t Government employees nor can they betreated  as  at\npar  with the employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas. They  are  a\nclass by themselves.14. [405F-G]\n    (4)\t In view of the position that the employees  of\t the\nSainik Society are a distinct class by themselves, there  is\nno merit in the claim that there has been discrimination. To\nput  unequals as equals is against the objective of  Article\n14. [405G]\n    (5) The claim of equal pay for equal work is indeed\t not\ntenable. A Sainik School intended essentially to draw  young\nmen for being recruited into the National Defence Academy is\nnot  an\t ordinary  school. Its curriculum,  the\t pattern  of\nteaching,  the\tlife  style, the  discipline  and  attention\ndiffer.\t A  claim for equal pay on the allegation  of  equal\nwork  reguires clear material to support the basis that\t the\nwork is both the institutions is the same. The claim of\t the\npetitioner  that the work in the two institution  is  equal,\nand,  therefore,  the claim for equality of  pay  cannot  be\naccepted.[406A,C-E]\n    (6) The Sainik School Society being, `State' is amenable\nto the jurisdiction of the Court and it is open to the court\nto  examine  whether  the conditions of service\t are  of  an\nacceptable pattern. [406E]\n    (7)\t The  Court accordingly\t examined  the\tpetitioner's\ndemands\t and  passed appropriate orders\t directing  specific\nreliefs\t in  terms  of\tmedical,  leave\t travel\t  concession\nbenefits  and house building and other advances.  The  Court\nhowever\t found\tnothing\t unreasonable in  the  condition  of\nservice pertaining to age of retirement. [407G]\n    Ajay  Hasia\t & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1981] 1 SCC 722 and International Airport Authority  case.,\n[1979]3 SCC 489.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1219 of 1987.
\n    (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. )
\n    T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P.N. Puri and R.K. Talwar\t for
\nthe Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 400
\n    Kuldip   Singh  and\t B.  Dutta,   Additional   Solicitor
\nGenerals, Mahabir Singh, C.M. Nayar, A.K. Srivastava, Ms. A.
\nSubhashini, A.S. Bhasme and A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.
\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATH MISRA, J. This application is under Article 32
\nof the Constitution. The All India Sainik Schools  Employees
\nAssociation  through  its President is the  petitioner.\t The
\nSainik\tSchool\tSociety\t (hereinafter referred\tto  as\t“the
\nSociety”)  is  a  society  registered  under  the  Societies
\nRegistration  Act,  21\tof  1860. The  main  object  of\t the
\nSociety, as available from clause 3(a) of the Memorandum  of
\nAssociation is:\n<\/p>\n
    `to establish Sainik Schools in various parts of  India,
\nproviding  special school education of a high standard\twith
\nthe  aim of preparing boys academically and  physically\t for
\nentry into National Defence Academy and other walks of life.
\n”\n<\/p>\n
With  a view to implementing this object 18 schools  located
\nin  different States of the country have  been\testablished.
\nThe petitioner has impleaded the Chairman and Members of the
\nBoard  of  Governors of the Society as respondents 1  to  6;
\nMinisters   of\t Education  of\tthe  seventeen\t States\t  as
\nrespondents  7\tto 23 and Principals of the  18\t schools  as
\nrespondents 24 to 41 The petitioner has asked for a writ  of
\nmandamus to the Union of India as also respondent No. l:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t to implement the recommendations of the Fourth\t Pay
\nCommission  in\tthe  Sainik Schools and to  extend  all\t the
\nbenefits   already  given  to  employees  of  the   Kendriya
\nVidyalayas by way of implementing the recommendations of the
\nChattopadhya Commission;\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t to give to the employees of the Sainik Schools\t the
\ndifferential  wages  in terms of the  Third  Pay  Commission
\nbetween\t 1973 (when it applied to  Government  institutions)
\nand  1978 (when the benefits were extended to the  employees
\nof the Sainik Schools);\n<\/p>\n
    (3)\t to direct that the employees of the Sainik  Schools
\nshall  have  the benefits of leave travel  concession  house
\nrent, pension, group insurance, contributory provident fund,
\npensionary   benefits  and gratuity in the same\t pattern  as
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 401
\nobtaining in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan or given to Defence
\nServices Officers working in the Sainik Schools, and;\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t enhance the age of superanuation to 60 years as  in
\nthe case of Kendriya Vidyalaya employees.
\n    When  notice was issued to the  respondents,  respondent
\nNo. I alone entered appearance and made a return. Apart from
\nraising certain\t technical pleas against the maintainability
\nof the petition, it has pleaded that the Society was not  an
\ninstrumentality\t of the State. According to  the  respondent
\nNo.  1, the entire capital expenditure on  land,  buildings,
\nfurniture and educational equipment and the major portion of
\nthe  recurring expenditure is borne by the  concerned  State
\nGovernment\/Union  Territory  Administration  of\t the  places
\nwhere  the  school is located.\tMaintenance,  additions\t and
\nreplacement are also the obligation of the respective  State
\nGovernments.  The Principal, the Head-Master, the  Registrar
\nand  an\t Army Physical Training Corps\/ National\t Cadet\tCorp
\nInstructor  posted  in\tevery school are  paid\tout  of\t the
\nDefence\t budget All other expenses are met out of  the\tfees
\npayable by the parents or taken out of the scholarships paid
\nby  the\t State\/Central\tGovernments  to\t the  students.\t The
\nquantum\t of the fees,scholarships is fixed by the  Board  of
\nGovernors  from time to time taking into  consideration\t the
\nfinancial position
\n    The\t counter  affidavit accepted the  petitioner’s\tplea
\nthat  several Committees had been established  for  bringing
\nabout  improvement in the functioning of the Sainik  Schools
\nand  improvement of conditions of service such as  the\tHigh
\nPower Committee Sahare Committee, Balaram Committee and\t the
\nAcademic   Study  Group\t Though\t it  essence  the   Kendriya
\nVidyalayas  and\t the  other establishments  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  differ  from  the Sainik Schools,  many  of\t the
\nbenefits  admissible  to Government servants  and  Vidyalaya
\nteachers  have\talready been extended to  employees  of\t the
\nSainik\t Schools   The\tcounter\t affidavit   traversed\t the
\npetitioner’s  averment\t that  the  guideline  of   Kendriya
\nVidyalayas has to be adopted and the benefits admissible  to
\nthe  employees of such Vidyalayas should be extended to\t the
\nemployees of Sainik Schools According to the respondent, the
\nSainik\tSchools are of a different pattern;  the  historical
\nbackground of their creation, the purpose for which they are
\nfounded\t and the other benefits which are admissible to\t the
\nemployees should also be borne in mind when considering\t the
\nclaim raised by the petitioner According to the\t respondents
\nthe claim based on the concept of equal pay for equal  work
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 402
\ncontained   in\t Article  39(d)\t of  the   Constitution\t  is
\nmisconceived inasmuch as unless the nature and the status of
\nthe service is the same there can be no equality.
\n    On\tbehalf of the petitioner a rejoinder has been  filed
\nreiterating  some of the averments in the main petition\t and
\nmeeting\t some of the pleadings in the counter  affidavit  of
\nrespondent No 1.\n<\/p>\n
    During  the pendency of this application, the  Board  of
\nGovernors decided to extend certain advantages and  benefits
\nto  the\t employees  of the Sainik  Schools.  Some  of  these
\nbenefits had been claimed in the writ petition. An affidavit
\nhas been filed on behalf of the petitioner indicating\twhat
\nare  the  claims  still\t in  issue  on\tthe  basis  of\t the
\nrespondents’  affidavit\t dated\tJuly 29,  1988.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary  to  recount\tthe  concessions   extended  by\t the
\nSociety and in our view what is claimed as subsisting  items
\nmay now be dealt with These are:\n<\/p>\n
    1.\tThe age of retirement should be 60 years  applicable
\nto  all categories of employees being the same as  obtaining
\nin the case of employees of the kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
\n(K.V.S.).\n<\/p>\n
    2. Bonus and gratuity should be effective from  1.1.1986
\nand employees who have either retired or resigned after that
\ndate  should be given benefit of the Contributory  Provident
\nFund and gratuity at Central Government rates.
\n    3  Medical reimbursement should he provided on the\tsame
\nbasis  as  admissible  to  K.V.S.  and\tCentral\t  Government
\nemployees.\n<\/p>\n
    4. Leave Travel Concession including once in a block  of
\nfour  years  to\t travel anywhere in lndia  as  available  to
\nemployees of K.V.S. and Central Government employees  should
\nbe available.\n<\/p>\n
    5. Leave rules to all categories of employees should  be
\nplaced at par with employees of K.V.S.\n<\/p>\n
    6.\tHouse Rent Allowance should be granted\twith  effect
\nfrom 1.10.1986, at par with Central Government employees.\n<\/p>\n
    7.\tThe  pay  scale\t recommended  by  the  Chattopadhyay
\nCommission to Teachers should be effective from 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 403\n<\/p>\n
    8.\tThe  Librarians should be given the benefit  of\t pay
\nrevision  as per the Chattopadhyay Commission pay scale with
\neffect from 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
    9.\tOffice\tSuperintendent,\t Accountants  and   Personal
\nAssistant to the Principals should be given the same pay  as
\ntheir  counterpart receive from the Central Government\twith
\neffect from 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
    10.\t Nursing  Sisters\/Assistants\/Compouders\t should\t  be
\ngranted\t pay  scales  at par  with  Pharmacists\t in  Central
\nGovernment  under Para-Medical Staff as per  recommendations
\nof the 4th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986.\n<\/p>\n
    11.\t House Construction Loan, Scooter and  Car  Purchase
\nLoan   should  be  granted  at\tpar  with   K.V\t  S.\/Central
\nGovernment Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    12.\t 15% extra pay over and above scales  admissible  to
\nK.V.S.\tteachers should be admissible to the  Sainik  School
\nteachers .\n<\/p>\n
    13.\t The difference in wages between 1.1.1973  and\t30th
\nJune,  1978 on account of delayed implementation of the\t 3rd
\nPay Commission’s recommendations should be paid.
\n    l4. Bonus for 1984-85 and 1985-86 should also be paid at
\npar with K.V.S\n<\/p>\n
    15.\t All  employees\t who  have  retired  by\t now  before
\ncompleting 60 years of age and have not yet attained the age
\nof  60\tyears  should  be called  back\tto  duty  and  given
\npostings.\n<\/p>\n
    As\twe have already indicated, it is the  contention  of
\nthe  petitioner\t that the Sainik School Society\t is  `State’
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12 and is accordingly amenable
\nto  claim and enforcement of fundamental rights. It is\talso
\nto   be\t guided\t by  what  is  provided\t in  Part  4of\t the
\nConstitution by way of Directive Principles of State Policy.
\n    A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ajay Hasia &\tOrs.
\nv.   Khalid  Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.,<\/a> [1981] 1 SCC  722\t was
\nconsidering    whether\ta  Society  registered\t under\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 404
\nSocieties  Registration Act of 1861 could be “State”  within
\nthe  meaning  of Article 12. Bhagwati, J., as he  then\twas,
\nspeaking  for the unanimous Bench called out six tests\tfrom
\nthe   judgment\tof  this  Court\t in  International   Airport
\nAuthority case (1979) 3 SCC489. Those tests are:\n<\/p>\n
    “(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital
\nof the Corporation is held by Government, it would go a long
\nway   towards\tindicating  that  the  Corporation   is\t  an
\ninstrumentality or agency of Government.
\n    (2)\t Where the financial assistance of the State  is  so
\nmuch   as   to\tmeet  almost  entire  expenditure   of\t the
\nCorporation,   it  would  afford  some\tindication  of\t the
\nCorporation being impregnated with Governmental character.
\n    (3)\t It may also be a relevant factor ….\twhether\t the
\nCorporation   enjoys  monopoly\tstatus\twhich  is  a   State
\nconferred or State protected.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t Existence of deep and pervasive State\tcontrol\t may
\nafford\tan  indication\tthat the Corporation  is  agency  or
\ninstrumentality.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t If the functions of the Corporation are  of  public
\nimportance and closely related to governmental functions  it
\nwould be a relevant factor in classifying the Corporation as
\nan instrumentality or agency of Government.
\n    (6)\t “Specifically,\t if a department  of  Government  is
\ntransferred  to a Corporation, it would be ;l strong  factor
\nsupportive  of this inference” of the Corporation  being  an
\ninstrumentality or agency of Government.”\n<\/p>\n
    Applying  those tests the Constitution Bench found\tthat
\nthe  Society which managed the Regional Engineering  College
\nat Srinagar and several others elsewhere was `State’. Having
\nsaid so, this Court pointed out:\n<\/p>\n
    “It\t is  also  necessary to add that  merely  because  a
\njuristic  entity  may be an authority  and  therefore  State
\nwithin the meaning of Article 12, it may not be elevated  to
\nthe  position of State for the purpose of Articles 309,\t 310
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 405
\nand  311 which find a place in Part XIV. The  definition  of
\nState  in Article 12 which includes an authority within\t the
\nterritory of India or under the control of the Government of
\nIndia  is  limited in its application only Part III  and  by
\nvirtue of Article 30, to Part IV; it does not extent to\t the
\nother  provisions of the Constitution and hence\t a  juristic
\nentity which may be State for the purpose of Part III and IV
\nwould  not  be so for the purpose of Part XIV or  any  other
\nprovision of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
    Applying the tests indicated at page 737 of the Reporter
\nit cannot be doubted that the Sainik School Society is\talso
\n`State’.  The entire funding is by the State Government\t and
\nthe Central Government. The main object of the Society is to
\nrun schools and prepare students for the purpose of  feeding
\nthe National Defence Academy. Defence of the country is\t one
\nof the regal functions of the State.\n<\/p>\n
    Once  it  is  held that the\t Sainik\t School\t Society  is
\n`State’\t  within   the\tmeaning\t of  Article   12   of\t the
\nConstitution,  application  of\tArticle\t 14  is\t  attracted.
\nSimilarly  under  the Directive\t Principles–the  claim\t for
\nequal pay for equal work becomes tenable.
\n    The main plank for substantiating the petitioner’s claim
\nfor relief is the allegation of discrimination founded\tupon
\nthe  basis that the employees of the Sainik  School  Society
\nthough\tin every respect comparable to employees of  K\tV.S.
\nand  the  Central Government are not being  given  the\tsame
\ntreatment  K V.S. is a creation of the Government  of  lndia
\nand  is wholly financed out of the Central Exchequer  Sainik
\nSchool Society, as already pointed out, is not wholly funded
\nby the Central Government. In fact substantial\tcontribution
\nfor  running the Sainik School comes from the funds  of\t the
\nState where the school is located. The Central\tGovernment’s
\ncontribution  is  minimal  The mode  of\t funding  is  mainly
\nthrough scholarship by the State payable to the students. It
\nfollows\t out of this fact that the employees of\t the  Sainik
\nSchool\tcannot be treated as Central Government\t employees–
\nnor  can they be treated as at par with the employees  of  K
\nV.S.  They  are a class by themselves  and,  therefore,\t the
\nstand on the basis of Article 14 by pleading  discrimination
\nagainst\t the guarantee of equality is not available. To\t put
\nunequals  as equals is against the objective of Article\t 14;
\nin the same way is to discriminate between equals The later,
\nhowever,  is on the hypothesis that the two are\t equals.  In
\nview of the position that the employees of the Society are a
\ndistinct class by themselves, we do not think that there  is
\nany merit in the claim that there has been discrimination.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 406
\n    Similarly  the  claim  of equal pay for  equal  work  is
\nindeed\tnot tenable. No acceptable material has been  placed
\nbefore\tus  to support\tthe stand that the work in  the\t two
\ninstitutions  is  equal.  A bare  statement  that  both\t the
\nKendriya Vidyalayas and the Sainik Schools impart  education
\nto  the students cannot sustain the claim of equal work.  To
\nmaintain  a claim for equal pay on the allegation  of  equal
\nwork  requires clear material to support the basis that\t the
\nwork  in  both\tthe  institutions  is  the  same.   Kendriya
\nVidyalayas  popularly known as Central Schools, are more  or
\nless  schools  as understood in common\tparlance.  A  Sainik
\nSchool\tintended  essentially to draw young  men  for  being
\nrecruited  into\t the  National Defence\tAcademy\t is  not  an
\nordinary  school. Its curriculum, the pattern  of  teaching,
\nthe  life style, the discipline\t and attention\tdiffer.\t The
\nSainik\tSchools are totally residential and the\t teacher  is
\nprovided  accommodation\t within the complex with a  view  to
\nexposure  of students to the teacher throughout\t the  period
\nand  allow  the\t teacher to  exercise  regulation  over\t the
\nstudents  at  all  material   times.  The  teacher  is\talso
\nexpected  to  interact with the students  beyond  the  class
\nroom.  The  Principal  of the Sainik  School  is  a  defence
\nservice officer; so is the Headmaster for the lower classes;
\nthe Physical Instructor is also drawn from the Army. We\t are
\nnot in a position to accept the claim of the petitioner that
\nthe  work in the two institutions is equal,  and  therefore,
\nthe  claim  for\t equality of pay cannot\t be  accepted.\tEven
\nthough that claim is not accepted, the Sainik Schools  being
\n`state’ is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court and  it
\nis  open to the court to examine whether the  conditions  of
\nservice are of an acceptable pattern.\n<\/p>\n
    The age of retirement of teachers in the Sainik  Schools
\nis till 60 years but continuance beyond 58 years is  subject
\nto  physical fitness and continued satisfactory\t performance
\nof duties. For non-academic staff the age is 58 years  which
\nis  same  for most government employees.  There\t is  nothing
\nunreasonable in this condition of service. There has been  a
\nswitch over to pension and gratuity scheme with effect\tfrom
\n29.7.1988. The claim of the petitioner is that it should  be
\nwith  effect from. 1.1.1986. Keeping the mode of funding  in
\nview,  we  do not think the liability that  would  arise  by
\nante-dating  the benefit from 1.1.1986 can  be\tconveniently
\nmet.  We, however, see no reason why the benefit  should  be
\nextended  only from 29.7.1988, which is said to be the\tdate
\nof the decision. It should be made operative from 1st April,
\n]988,  which  is the commencement of the  current  financial
\nyear.  We  would accordingly  direct that  the\tpension\t and
\nrevised\t gratuity  scheme  should  be  made  operative\tfrom
\n1.4.1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 407
\n     We\t see no reason to interfere in the matter  of  claim
\nfor  medical  reimbursement. The Society  has  extended\t the
\nbenefit\t of  medical  allowance\t which is a  known  form  in
\nrespect\t of even government servants not covered  under\t the
\nC.G.H.\tScheme.\t But  here  again  the\tbenefit\t should\t  be
\noperative from 1st April, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    Coming  to\tthe Leave Travel Concession  advantage,\t the
\nsame  should  be  available  from  1st\tApril,\t1988,  while
\npermitting the visit to the home town once in a block of two
\nyears. In terms of the recommendation  of the Academic Study
\nGroup, we are inclined to extend the benefit of Leave Travel
\nConcession  for visiting any place in India once in a  block
\nof  four years. When such scheme is being accepted  even  by
\nnon-government\temployers  on the basis\t that  these  visits
\nimprove\t the quality of service, we extend it to the  Sainik
\nSchool employees effective from 1.4.1988.
\n    Most of the employees have accommodation provided by the
\nSainik\tSchools and according to the Respondent No.  1\tfree
\nfurnished  accommodation  is provided. There  may  be  cases
\nwhere in the absence of such accommodation the employees may
\nbe living in rented accommodation,  but we do not think that
\nwe should interfere in respect of this claim.
\n    The\t other claims raised do not appear to be  reasonable
\nexcept\tthe  prayer for providing house\t construction  loan,
\nscooter,  car  purchase\t loan. This is really  nOt  a  heavy
\nburden\tand  out of the fund to be created loans are  to  be
\nprovided   and\tthe  loan  amounts  are\t  recoverable\twith
\nconcessional  interest. According to modern  thinking  these
\nadvantages  are\t normal\t service  benefits.  A\t residential
\naccommodation  adds  to the security of the employee  and  a
\nconveyance  adds  to his mobility. We are of the  view\tthat
\nthis  benefit  should be admissible to\tthe  employees.\t The
\nSociety shall, therefore, create an appropriate fund  either
\nto be operated through every college or through such  method
\nas may be found convenient for entertaining claims for house
\nconstruction  loan  and loans for purchase of  scooter,\t car
\netc.  as  may  be admissible in terms of the  scheme  to  be
\nframed.\t We direct that the further benefits which  we\thave
\ngranted by our present order should be made available to the
\nemployees by the end of 31st March, 1989. The writ  petition
\nis  accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  we part, we would like to place on\trecord\tthat
\nlearned\t  Additional   Solicitor   General   appearing\t for
\nrespondent  No. 1 had candidly stated in Court that if\tover
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 408
\nand  above  what  the  Board of\t Governors  had\t decided  to
\nsanction,  if  this  Court was of the view  that  some\tmore
\nbenefits should be given, the same may be ordered.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t       Petition disposed of.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 88, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 398 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: ALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. RESPONDENT: DEFENCE MINISTER-CUM-CHAIRMAN BOARD OFGOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHO DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1988 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\"},\"wordCount\":3010,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\",\"name\":\"All India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"All India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988","datePublished":"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988"},"wordCount":3010,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988","name":"All India Sainik Schools ... vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman ... on 4 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T02:41:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-sainik-schools-vs-defence-minister-cum-chairman-on-4-october-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India Sainik Schools … vs Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman … on 4 October, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}