Gauhati High Court
Dhwajen Chandra Nath And Ors vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 11 September, 2013
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 607/2007.
1. Sri Dhwajen Chandra Nath,
Son of Late Prabhat Chandra Nath,
Resident of village-Chitalmari, P.O. Tipalai,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
2. Md. Wazid Ali Mollah,
Son of Hasem Ali Mollah,
Resident of village & P.O. Takimari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
3. Sri Sanjib Kumar Medhi,
Son of B. N. Medhi,
Resident of village-Bapujinagar, P.O. Baladmari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
4. Sri Bhagirath Barman,
Son of Late Mani Ram Barman,
Resident of village & P.O. Pachania,
District: Bongaigaon, Assam.
5. Md. Abdul Aziz Sheikh,
Son of Late Akabbar Ali Sheikh,
Resident of village - Tarangpur, P.O. Tulsibari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
6. Sri Dambaru Kalita,
Son of Late Kalicharan Kalita,
Resident of village & P.O. Bakaitari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
7. Sri Dilip Kumar Das,
Son of Sri Basanta Kumar Das,
Resident of village-Buduchor (Kalitapara), P.O. Dalgoma,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
8. Sri Parikshit Nath,
Son of Sri Kshirod Kumar Nath,
Resident of village-Bapujinagar, P.O. Baladmari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
9. Md. Nurul Haque Paramanik,
Son of Late Makkal Ali Paramanik,
Resident of village & P.O. Koshbari,
District: Bongaigaon, Assam.
10. Sri Hemanta Kumar Nath,
Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Nath,
Resident of village & P.O. Bakaitari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
11. Md. Soukat Ali,
Son of Sahabuddin Miah,
Resident of village & P.O. Simlabari,
District: Goalpara, Assam.
...Petitioners.
-vs-
2
1. The State of Assam, through the Secretary
To the Govt. of Assam,
Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Director of Non-Formal & Adult Education, Assam,
Hatigaon, Guwahati-6.
3. The District Adult Education Officer, Goalpara,
P.O. Goalpara, District - Goalpara, Assam.
...Respondents.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For the Petitioners : Mr. S C Biswas, Advocate, Mr. R Mazumdar, Advocate, Mr. D Dutta, Advocate, Mr. H Chanda, Advocate, Mr. S Das, Advocate and Ms. R Rangmai, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. UK Goswami, Standing Counsel, Education.
Date of hearing & judgment : 11.09.2013.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)
Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Standing Counsel, Education Mr. UK Goswami appears for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are Supervisors in the Directorate of Adult Education, Assam and claim pay up-gradation at par with the Sub-Inspectors (S.I.) of Schools of the State's Education Department. Initially the petitioners were appointed on fixed pay of Rs.500/- with traveling allowance of Rs.60/- P.M. under the Rural Functional Literacy Programme/State Adult Education Programme. But since they received meager salary, they filed the Civil Rule No.160/1989 for fixation of regular time scale for the Supervisors. That case was disposed of through the judgment dated 20.10.1990 (Annexure-3) and this Court by relying upon the decision in Bhagwan Das vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1987 SC 2049, ordered the State Government to ensure thet the entire amount received by the State Government from the Union of India be utilized for paying salary to the Supervisors. This judgment of 20.10.1990 was clarified subsequently on 27.5.1991, whereby the respondents were directed to implement the judgment of the Apex 3 Court in Bhagwan Das (Supra), to confer the Supervisors with pay scale and other service benefits.
3. The Govt. of Assam thereafter created 318 posts of Supervisors with retrospective effect from 27.5.1991 in the Adult Education Directorate in the scale of pay of Rs.1255--2635 and consequently the serving Supervisors were absorbed in these newly created posts. In addition to the salary component, the Supervisors were to be paid Rs.150/- P.M. as traveling allowance (T.A.).
4. The pay scale specified for the Supervisors at Rs.1255--2635 was equivalent to Headmasters of the ME Schools under Revision of Pay Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the ROP Rules'), 1990 and the petitioners although were bracketed in the same pay scale as ME School's Headmasters, claimed higher pay scale of Rs.1375--3375, applicable for the SI of Schools, under the ROP Rules, 1990. The up-gradation of T.A. to Rs.350/- P.M. as granted to SI of Schools was also claimed by the Supervisors of the Adult Education Programme.
5. Thereafter when pay scales were revised through the ROP Rules, 1998, the pay of Headmaster of the ME Schools were up-graded to the scale of Rs.3580--8750 and this up-gradation made the Headmaster's pay equivalent to the pay scale of SI of Schools under the ROP Rules, 1998. The petitioners contend that this justified pay parity of the Supervisors with the SI of Schools since the pay of the Headmasters of the ME Schools is now bracketed at par, with the SI of Schools.
6. Justifying pay parity with the SI of Schools, Advocate Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel submits that the petitioners discharge similar supervisory functions as the school's SI and since qualification for both posts is graduation, there can be no distinction of pay for the Supervisors of the Adult Education Programme and the SI of schools. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Bhagwan Das, the petitioners contend that the Supervisors are wholetime functionaries and since the Government has decided to grant them regular pay scale, there pay must not be lower than the Sub-Inspectors, under the Education Department.
7. In response, the departmental lawyer Mr. UK Goswami submits that after this Court's judgment on 20.10.1990 (Annexure-3) in the Civil Rule No.160/1989 and the subsequent clarificatory order of 27.5.1991 4 (Annexure-4), the Government created 318 posts and stipulated appropriate scale of pay for absorption of the Supervisors and accordingly it is argued that the benefit of this Court's judgment was already granted to the serving Supervisors.
8. However on the pay parity claim with the SI of Schools, Mr. Goswami submits that the nature of responsibility discharged by the Supervisors are less onerous than the school SI's and qualification for appointment for the SI's posts are also dissimilar. On this basis, it is argued that there is no justification for allowing the Supervisors pay parity with a class, whose functions and responsibilities are not comparable to the petitioners.
9. On the additional claim of arrear salary, the departmental lawyer refers to the order dated 26.11.2007 to project that Rs.4,88,781/- was sanctioned for disbursal of due arrear salary to the Supervisors of the Adult Education Programme and receipt of this amount is verbally acknowledged by the petitioners' Advocate.
10. Before proceeding further, it must be noted that the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das (Supra) was comparing the Supervisors under the Adult Education Scheme with the whole time Supervisors in the regular cadre, in the State of Haryana. Thus there was no occasion for the Apex Court to compare the Adult Education Supervisors with the SI of Schools in Assam. Accordingly I feel that the petitioners' claim for pay parity with the SI of Schools can't be based on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das (Supra). It is declared accordingly.
11. The next aspect that needs to be considered is whether the qualification for recruitment of Adult Education Supervisors is equivalent to SI of Schools. Admittedly a graduate is eligible for appointment as Supervisors of the Adult Education Directorate, but higher qualification is prescribed for the post of SI of Schools where professional qualification like B. Ed. degree and 5 years teaching experience is prescribed. Therefore on the criteria of qualification, the two categories can't be treated at par.
12. Although both groups carry out inspection duties, there is distinct difference on the jurisdictional area and the responsibility discharged by the two cadres. While the SI of Schools cover a larger area and supervise the functions of about 100 LP schools, a Supervisor of the Adult Education 5 Directorate traverse smaller distance and supervise only 30/33 centers within his jurisdiction. Moreover the Adult Education Centers are targeted at illiterate people aged between 15 to 35 years, whereas the SI of Schools supervises functions of LP schools, where young children receive basic education. The number of functioning days of LP school is about 220 days a year, whereas the activities of the Adult Education Centers are not more than 200 hours in a calendar year. Moreover the functioning hours of the Adult Education Center is 2 hours, whereas the LP school functions for 5 hours a day and wider spectrum of subjects are taught in the LP schools, while in the Adult Education Centers, attempt is to develop only language and arithmetic skills at basic level, for the illiterate adults.
13. Having noticed the above differentiation in the functioning and objective of the Adult Education Centers and the LP schools, merely because the petitioners discharge inspecting functions like the IS of Schools, it will not justify pay parity for the Supervisors of the Adult Education Center. The nature of the duties, the responsibilities and the qualification for the two cadres are distinct and different and in this backdrop, the claim for pay parity made by the petitioners is found to be untenable.
14. In view of above, no merit is found in this case and accordingly the same is dismissed without any order on cost. However if any T.A. is unpaid to the petitioners as is submitted by the petitioners' lawyer, the dismissal of the case will not foreclose their right to claim the arrear dues.
JUDGE Barman.