Smt. Sushila Gairola vs Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In order to provide education to the children of employees of the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh working at Tehri, a school was established. The same was a Junior High School. The employees of the said school were all work-charge employees. Petitioner was also an employee of the said school and was discharging the duties of the Headmaster of the said school. On 14th December 1990, the said school was upgraded to a High School. Prior thereto sometimes in 1989, management of the said school vested in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. The said school was, however, never an aided institution. After the school became a High School, Petitioner discharged the duties of Headmaster of the said school. Petitioner was acknowledged as an employee of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation and, at the same time, was settled in a pay scale. The pay scale, in which the Petitioner was settled, is less than the pay scale of Headmasters of aided Government schools.

In June 1992, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation constituted a Board by the name T.H.D.C. Education Management Board. The object of constitution of the said Board was to supervise management of the educational institutions managed by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. The Board, in June 1992, framed service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff of all institutions under its management or supervision. In that, it prescribed that the pay scale of Headmaster of High School shall be ` 2000 - 3500. This scale was much more than the scale in which the Petitioner was fixed. Petitioner wanted the scale, but the same was denied.

In the present writ petition, the contention of the Petitioner is that she should be given the pay scale applicable to Headmasters of Government aided schools, if she is not allowed the pay scale fixed by the Board. In addition to that, it is being contended by the Petitioner that she is drawing salary in a pay scale less than the pay scale of teachers of the selfsame school of which the Petitioner is the Headmaster.

We wanted the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to produce before us any law, order or direction made / issued by the Government, directing management of schools to pay salary to teaching staff of their schools in the same scale of pay as is applicable to Government schools. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that he has been able to locate directions of the Government upon management of such schools, which obtained grant-in-aid from the State, to pay salary to teaching staff in the same pay scale as that of the Government school, but has not been able to obtain any direction to that effect upon management of unaided schools. That being the situation, there was no compulsion on the part of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation to pay to the Petitioner salary in the pay scale applicable to Headmasters of Government schools or of aided Government schools.

In June 1992, while the Board prescribed the scale of pay of ` 2000-3500 for Head Master of High School, by framing service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff, it made clear that in order to obtain the said scale candidate in question must be a regular employee of the Board and for that purpose must have minimum qualification as prescribed and prescribed the minimum qualification of post graduation with 45% marks for the post of Head Master of High School. Inasmuch as the Petitioner is not a post graduate with 45% marks, she was never treated to have been appointed by the Board at any point of time. She remained an employee of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation. While Tehri Hydro Development Corporation constituted the Board and the said Board prescribed the service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff, neither Tehri Hydro Development Corporation nor the Board made any representation to the Petitioner that she would be paid salary in the scale of ` 2000-3500. That being the situation, we can not find any fault on the part of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation in not paying the Petitioner salary in the scale of ` 2000-3500.

It is true that the other teachers, who worked in the selfsame school, drew salary in a scale better than the scale in which the Petitioner was fixed, but then the Petitioner cannot be compared with them, in as much as they were employees of the Board and, accordingly, were entitled to the benefits of the service conditions framed by the Board, whereas the Petitioner, being not an employee of the Board, was not entitled to the benefits of the said service conditions. We, accordingly, are not in a position to do anything in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.