Rajeev Kumar Jaisawal and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—The petitioners, who are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, II & III, now re-designated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), Teacher (Panchayat) and Lecturer (Panchayat) respectively, have preferred the present writ petition for issuance of a directions to the respondent/State to grant regular pay scale of Education and Tribal Department to the petitioners from the date of their regularization together with all other benefits admissible to the government employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that grant of a different pay scale which is lesser than the Government employees like Assistant Teachers, Upper Division Teachers and Lecturers is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and since they are discharging the same duties and functions, it is violative of their right guaranteed under the principle equal pay for equal work. Learned counsel has referred to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (for short ''the Rules, 1997'') to submit that under the said rules Shiksha Karmis are entitled to all other benefits like Panchayat employees. However, the respondent/State has not taken any steps in spite of several representations.

Insofar as the argument regarding conferral of the same monetary benefits as are being given to the employees of the Janpad Panchayats and Zila Panchayats, this Court in the case of Smt. Gayatri Nirmalkar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others W.P. (S) No. 1974/2011, had an occasion to consider the similar plea. Para-3, 4 & 5 of the said order reads thus:-

(3) After hearing learned counsels for the petitioners this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. The order of appointment has been filed as Annexure P/1 to Annexure P/5 in which it is clearly mentioned that they shall be entitled to Panchayat Pay Scale as applicable to the particular grade of Shiksha Karmi on which each of the petitioners have been appointed. In so far as proceeding initiated before the Employees Provident Fund Organization is concerned, the said issue has to be dealt with by the said Organization which has passed the order Annexure P/7 and the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the provision contained under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(4) In so far as petitioners claim regarding grant of monetary benefits like the employees of Janpad Panchayats/Jila Panchayats, it is to be seen the said issue is in the realm of policy decision of the State Government and the writ Court cannot issue any mandamus directing the State or employer of the petitioners to fix the particular pay scale or grant monetary benefits on the ground of parity with other employees who are holding different posts than Shiksha Karmi. In the matter of Secretary, Finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, and State of Haryana and Another Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that Courts cannot direct fixation of particular pay scale.

(5) Plea of discrimination is also not available to the petitioners because the petitioners are not holding the same posts like other Janpad/Jila Panchayat employees. Article 14 applies when discrimination is alleged between persons belonging to the same class. Since the petitioners are Shiksha Karmis and are claiming parity with regard to monetary benefits vis-a-vis other employees of Janpad/Jila Panchayat, discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not made out.

In view of the above, the said part of the argument, having already been decided by this Court, is rejected.

To buttress the submission on the principle of equal pay for equal work, learned counsel has relied on Division Bench Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Gopal Chawala and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W.A. No. 596/2010 wherein after holding that the High Court cannot legislate law in so far as grant of pay scale is concerned, the Government of Madhya Pradesh was directed to look into the matter and if necessary, make necessary rules and while doing so, consider the dictates of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Land Development Corporation and Another Vs. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar and Another,

In the above matter of Mohd. Khursheed Anwar (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the plea of parity and employment/equal pay for equal work raised by the employees working on contract basis in the concerned department wherein regular employees were also working and there was difference in their salary/pay scale and in that context, the Supreme Court held that the contract employees should be granted at least minimum of the regular pay scale.

In the case in hand, the petitioners, who are appointed by Janpad Panchayats and Zila Panchayats, are claiming grant of a particular pay scale by claming parity with the Assistant Teachers/Teachers/Lecturers working in the Education Department and Tribal Welfare Department. Thus, the departments are different. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

Admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, II & III by respective Janpad Panchayats/Zila Panchayats, therefore, service conditions are governed under the Rules, 1997. As has been found in the case of Smt. Gayatri Nirmalkar (supra), the letter of appointment of Shiksha Kermis declares that they are entitled to Panchayat Pay Scale as applicable to the particular grade of Shiksha Karmi, therefore, they are not entitled of grant of pay scale of Assistant Teachers/Teachers/Lecturers, who are working in different department of the State Government. When the service conditions are governed under the set of rules and the order of appointment refers to a particular pay scale which the petitioners are already getting, they cannot claim benefit of any other pay scale admissible to teachers of different department. Doing so would amount to re-writing the Rules, 1997, resultantly changing the terms and conditions of appointment for which this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the matters of All India Sainik Schools Employees'' Association Vs. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors and Others, and Mew Ram Kanojia Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the principle of equal pay for equal work, has held that to claim parity of pay scale, employers of both groups should be the same so that rigor of Article 14 is attracted.

Similarly, in case of Harbans Lal and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, it has been held that alleged discrimination in grant of pay scale must be between employees working under the same establishment.

In the present case, the petitioners'' services are governed by different set of rules and their appointing authorities are various Janpad Panchayats/Zila Panchayats whereas, teachers working in the School Education and Tribal Welfare Department were appointed by the Government and are governed by the different set of rules. Thus, the plea of discrimination is not available for pressing into service in favour of the petitioners.

In the matter of R. Duraisamy and Others Vs. Director of School Education and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering the claim made by the teachers who were earlier working in the Panchayat Union Elementary School and were subsequently absorbed in the Government High School services. The said absorbed Government teachers pleaded that their counter parts who chose to remain in the Panchayat Schools are getting higher salary and better promotional prospects, therefore, they should also be paid salary at par with equal promotional opportunities. The Supreme Court rejecting the contention held that on their being absorbed in the High School, they cease to be a part of the cadre of the teachers serving in the school run by the Panchayat Union, therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to them.

The case in hand is exactly the same inasmuch as the petitioners are appointed by the Janpad Panchayats/Zila Panchayats and are claiming parity with the Assistant Teachers/teachers working in the School Education and Tribal Department. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the matter of R. Duraisamy (Supra) also, the present petition sans substance.

In the matter of S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply merely because the nature of work is same irrespective of qualifications, mode of appointment, experience, etc. It was held that fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge and grant of pay scale by the Court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences.

It cannot be lost sight of that huge number of Shiksha Karmis, may be more than one lakhs, are working in the State and any decision by the Court to grant benefit of pay scale as admissible to teachers working in the School Education Department would have serious consequences on the State Exchequer and it is precisely for this reason the Hon''ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that pay fixation and grant of parity is the job of the executive. In view of the above, this Court does not find any substance in this writ petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.