Madras High Court
M. Subramanian vs Union Of India on 15 April, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 15..04..2002
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Writ Petition Nos.16652 of 1997 and W.P.3815 of 1998
W.P. No.16652 of 1997 :
1. M. Subramanian
2. S. Paneer Selvam
3. S. Pachayappan
4. N. Ganapathy
5. K. Ramaiyan
6. R. Shanmugam
7. G. Arikesavan
8. M. Vinayagam
9. D. Annamalai Raja
10. M. Kangadarane
11. P. Sivarajan
12. R. Caliaperumal
13. M. Govindasamy
14. M. Arumugam
15. P. Subramanian
16. P. Bhaskaran
17. N. Rajasingam
18. A. Shanmugam
19. R. Duraisamy
20. V. Irissappan
21. A. Adhikesavan
22. R. Pichai Muthu
23. G. Ramachandran
24. C. Kannan
25. R. Marimuthu
26. M. Kalaiselvi
27. K. Balachandra
28. K. Dhanalakshmi
29. M. Palaniammal
30. S. Saraswathy
31. K. Gowri Saraswathy
32. R. Suguna
33. A. Armel Elizabeth
34. A. Renu Thaniga
35. A. Marie Antonette
36. Savithri Kaliaperumal
37. A. Ethin Mary
38. T. Gunavathy
39. C. Sougounda Boye
40. M. Madhivadhana
41. S. Bama
42. S. Usha
43. G. Devi
44. S. Jeyalakshmi
45. M. Balachandran
46. M. Gnanasekaran
47. G. Jegadeesan
48. K. Ramamoorthy
49. A. Paul Amalraj
50. R. Anbazhagan .. Petitioners
vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Union Territory of Pondicherry,
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Pondicherry.
2. Government of India,
rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Department of Education,
New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondents
W.P. No.3815 of 1998 :
1. G. George
2. K. Omalingam
3. J. Perera Marie Claire Flora
4. M. Lakshmikandan
5. A. Vidjayaletchoumy
6. D. Idamary Berthe
7. M. Hema
8. V. Rajalakshmi
9. G. Muthulakshmi
10. M. Kannayan
11. N. Rengarajan
12. S. Jayaraman
13. N.G. Kaliaperumal
14. C. Kumaravel
15. P. Muthulakshmi
16. C. Muthulakshmi
17. K. Sathiamurthy
18. G. Varadarajan
19. P. Savarimuthu Gaspard
20. P. Thiruvengadathan
21. R. Rathinavelu
22. S. Rajendran
23. K. Rajeswari
24. Ganeshar Sandraganda
25. J. Babiola Mary
26. T. Jayaraman
27. X.T. Amirtharaj
28. F. Leela Arokiamary
29. A. Pushpanathan
30. Deva Arovl Marie Ponnor
31. M. Ramakrishnan
32. V. Carounanidy
33. N. Jamuna
34. P. Umarani
35. M. Suseela
36. S. Sulochana
37. V. Samaladevy
38. S. Kousalya .. Petitioners
vs.
1. Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
New Delhi.
2. Union Territory of Pondicherry,
rep. by its Secretary,
Education Department,
Pondicherry. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavits
filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue Writs of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned
order, quash the said order and issue further directions to the
respondents as prayed for.
:ORDER
These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and the order of the respondents and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and after perusing the related records, and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. R. Vaigai, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. T. Murugesan, Government Pleader (Pondicherry) for the Government of Pondicherry and also Mr. J. Madhanagopal Rao for the Union of India, the Court passed the following order:-
O R D E R P. SHANMUGAM, J.
Petitioners, 50 in number in W.P. No.16652 of 1997 and 38 in number in W.P. No.3815 of 1998, have prayed for the issue of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 3.4.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No.749 of 1993 and O.A. No.1647 of 1992 respectively and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pay scales of the petitioners from Rs.335-600 to Rs.425-640 as was done in the case of Physical Education Teachers in Pondicherry with effect from the date of the revised Recruitment Rules, 1978 and the subsequent revisions.
2. The main relief sought for by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal is as follows :
"For the aforesaid reasons, it is prayed that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant to the applicants the revised pay of Rs.425-640 with effect from the dates of Revised Recruitment Rules in 1978 with all subsequent reliefs as was given to the Physical Education Teachers in Pondicherry by extending the benefits of the principle laid down by this Hon'ble Tribunal in T.A. No.47 of 1988 dated 30.1.1990 and in O.A. No.500 of 1989 dated 25.8.1992 , with arrears of pay as permissible in law and pass such other orders or directions as are necessary and proper to meet the ends of justice."
3. Before the Tribunal, as seen from the common order, the main grievance of the petitioners was that they were not granted the similar benefits of pay scale as that of the Physical Education Teachers in Pondicherry. The respondents have contended that the work of the petitioners, who were technical teachers, which include craft teachers, drawing teachers, music teachers, etc. could not be equated with the work rendered by physical education teachers and therefore, the benefit that has been extended to the physical education teachers cannot be given to these technical teachers. It was further contended that the nature of work involved in the craft education is not considered in the public examination point of view and that this type of work is fully concerned with socially useful productive work. The Tribunal considered this equation as not permissible and held that the revision of pay scales involves a policy decision and that the Tribunal will not interfere in such matters. The Tribunal observed that the dismissal of the O.A. will not preclude the respondents from re-considering the issue afresh.
4. The thrust of the argument before this Bench is that the Government of Pondicherry has accepted that the petitioners are doing equal work with that of their counterparts under the Central Government and that there is no justification in not implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on Teachers 1983-85 to treat all the teachers at the same level as equals for the purpose of pay etc. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the duties and responsibilities of the miscellaneous teachers (craft, domestic, music, drawing, etc.) of Delhi are different from that of the teachers in Pondicherry. The craft teachers in Pondicherry are teaching lessons relating to the subject of socially useful productive work which is subsidiary in nature and is not a full fledged subject. Further, the subject taught by the petitioners is not concerned with the examination point of view. Therefore, the recommendation made by the Pondicherry Administration for upgradation of the pay scales of drawing teachers, music teachers, craft teachers and swimming teachers was not agreed to by the Union of India.
5. The Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government of Pondicherry refers to the recommendation of the Director of School Education as an inter-departmental communication and the stand of the Government of Pondicherry is that the posts of miscellaneous teachers and the services rendered by them are not equal to that of the Junior Grade Teachers of Delhi Administration. The Government of Pondicherry, in their communication to the Central Government dated 6.2.1982, has stated that the Ministry has been convinced of the need to revise the pay in respect of the posts of physical education teachers as proposed, since identical posts both in the Delhi Administration and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have higher scales of pay, i.e. Rs.425-6 40 and that the qualifications and the experience prescribed for the post of physical education teachers in Pondicherry is also similar to that post in the above referred two Union Territories. With regard to the other technical teachers, while setting out the qualifications of those teachers, it was pointed out that these posts are utilised for teaching upto high school levels. There is no chance of permission for this category of post as the trade is not likely to be introduced in higher classes. It is understood that similar posts do not exist in other Union Territories in order to draw any comparison for favourable consideration. Further, on subsequent representation, the Union of India has negatived the case of the petitioners in their communication dated 25.2.1983 stating that it is not possible to agree for any upward revision of pay scales for this category of craft teachers. There were further representations and the Director, in his communication dated 4.3.1991 to the Government of Pondicherry, that craft teachers are taking classes from Standards VI to IX and that they should be given a scale of pay of Rs.1400-2500, which is equivalent to School Assistant Grade-II, because they are taking classes from Standard VI to Standard X in middle school/high school/higher secondary school, whereas a letter was sent to the Ministry stating that they are teaching socially useful productive work. Hence, the Director requested the Government of Pondicherry to address the Central Government stating that craft teachers are taking regular full fledged subjects similar to that of the teachers in the Union Territory of Delhi in order to remove the pay anomaly.
6. In the light of this conflicting stand, the case of the petitioners was put on a higher and broader plane before us, i.e. that though before the Tribunal, they sought to compare themselves with the physical education teachers and consequently sought for a pay revision, before this court, it was argued that they are comparable to the Junior Craft Teachers of the Union Territories of Delhi etc. They have also given a comparative statement of recruitment rules for the post of technical teachers, both in Pondicherry and New Delhi. This statement clearly reveals that the qualification of the junior craft Teachers in Delhi is higher. For example, in the case of craft teacher, the educational qualifications required in Pondicherry is S.S.L.C. eligible or the Third Form plus a Certificate of Craftmanship, whereas in Delhi, for Junior Craft Teacher, it is Matric plus two year training. Almost for all other technical teachers, they require two years of training. For drawing master, music teac her, etc., they require a degree or a diploma plus experience. Therefore, in so far as the educational qualifications are concerned, we find that they are not the same and we do not have any materials as to the nature of work they are attending. The respondents have submitted that they are taking lessons on subjects of socially useful productive work which is subsidiary in nature and that they are not concerned with the examination point of view. Therefore, as such, though the Director of School Education, Pondicherry has stated so in his communication to the Government, the Government has taken a different stand insofar as technical education teachers are concerned. They form a separate class on the basis of their qualification and the nature of work involved as stated above.
7. In UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. BIJOY LAL GHOSH [1998 (3) S.C.C. 3 62], the Supreme Court held that the primary school teachers under a particular project are entitled to higher pay scales as recommended by the National Commission on Teachers and the benefits of the National Commission on Teachers have to be given to the teachers working under the Central Government. The recommendation of the National Commission 1983-85 insofar special subject teachers is concerned is as follows :
"Our attention was drawn to the fact that in many places, several categories of teachers, such as Physical Education, Indian Languages, Music, Drawing and similar other subjects receive substantially lower salaries than others teaching at the same level. This is unfortunate as all disciplines are of equal value and importance for the development of the chid. Whatever the origins of such an anomaly, we are strongly of the view that no discrimination between one teacher and another teacher at the same level can be justified in the matter of salary and other conditions of work. We suggested that the unfair disparities must stop forthwith."
The recommendation of the National Commission set out above says that teachers at the same level are entitled to be treated in the same manner for the purpose of salary etc. The respondents have clearly taken a stand that the craft teachers are not in the same level as that of the Junior Grade Teachers in Delhi and other administrations. Therefore, the judgment as well as the recommendation are of no assistance to the petitioners.
8. In STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS VS. RAM CHANDER [1997 (5) S.C.C. 253 }, the Supreme Court held that teachers are entitled for parity in pay scales in different educational institutes. It was also held that the difference in educational qualification prescribed for their appointment might have vital difference but for the fact that the State Government had itself effaced this difference while revising the pay scales of its employees on the recommendation of the Pay Commission. The Tribunal, in this case, has given liberty to the respondents to revise their pay scales if they consider that there is no difference in educational qualifications and even if there is some difference, they can choose to ignore the same. The petitioners, therefore, cannot insist before this court that the Government should accept their case even if there are differences in their qualifications, recruitment and nature of work and duties. Though the petitioners are teachers, the respondents treat them differently, justifiably. The principle of parity of pay presupposes similarity in their qualification, recruitment and service. Hence, we do not find sufficient grounds to say that the petitioners are denied equal treatment.
9. For all the above reasons, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the Tribunal and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the respondents to re-consider the issue on the basis of any representation, fresh or already submitted, in favour of the petitioners.
(P.S.M.J.) (F.M.I.K.J.)
Index : Yes 15..04..2002
Internet : Yes
ab
Sd/..
Assistant Registrar
// TRUE COPY //
Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
To
1. Secretary,
Education Department,
Union Territory of Pondicherry,
Union of India,
Pondicherry.
2. Secretary,
Department of Education,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Government of India,
New Delhi-110 001.
P. SHANMUGAM, J.
and
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
Order in
W.P. Nos.16652 of 1997
and 3815 of 1998.