LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, August 12, 2011

We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. This is because the 15 salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law. In Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 680], the teachers of a recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government schools and this Court held that in the absence of statutory provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory 16 duty. But in the present case, there was no statutory provision requiring a private unaided school to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of Government schools and therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions.


                                                          Reportable


              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2676 OF 2010


Mrs. Satimbla Sharma and Ors.                          ...     Appellants



                                 Versus



St. Paul's Senior Secondary School and Ors.    ... Respondents





                         J U D G M E N T


A. K. PATNAIK, J.


      This   is   an   appeal   against   the   judgment   dated



25.07.2008   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of



Himachal   Pradesh,   Shimla,   in   Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.48



of 2004.



2.    The facts very briefly are that in 1923 the respondent


      No.1-School   (for   short   `the   School')   was   initially



      established   as   a   mission   school   by   the   respondent



      No.2.     The   School   adopted   the   10+2   system   in   1993



      and   is   presently   affiliated   to   the   Himachal   Pradesh



      Board   of   School   Education.     Before   independence   in



      1947   the   School   was   receiving   grant-in-aid   from   the


                                     2




      British   Indian   Government   and   thereafter   from   the



      Government of India upto 1950.   From 1951 to 1966,



      the   School   received   grant-in-aid   from   the   State



      Government   of   Punjab.     After   the   State   of   Himachal



      Pradesh   was   formed,   the   School   received   grant-in-aid



      from the Government of Himachal Pradesh during the



      years   1967   to   1976.     From   the   year   1977-1978,   the



      School   has   not   been   receiving   any   grant-in-aid   from



      the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the teachers



      of the School are being paid less than the teachers of



      Government schools and Government aided schools in



      the State of Himachal Pradesh.



3.    Not satisfied with their salary and allowances, some of


      the   teachers   of   the   School   filed   a   Writ   Petition,   CWP



      No.1038   of   1996,   in   the   High   Court   of   Himachal



      Pradesh   for   a   direction   to   pay   the   salary   and



      allowances   at   par   with   the   teachers   of   Government



      schools   and   Government-aided   schools   and   by



      judgment   dated   11.10.2004   the   learned   Single   Judge



      of   the   High   Court   of   Himachal   Pradesh   allowed   the



      Writ Petition and directed the respondent nos.1 and 2


                                   3




      to pay to the writ petitioners salary and allowances at



      par   with   their   counter-parts   working   in   the



      Government schools from the dates they were entitled



      to   and   at   the   rates   admissible   from   time   to   time.



      Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge,



      the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Letters Patent Appeal



      No.48 of 2004 (for  short `the LPA')  before  the  Division



      Bench   of   the   High   Court   and   by   the   impugned



      judgment dated 25.07.2008, the Division Bench of the



      High   Court   set   aside   the   judgment   of   the   learned



      Single   Judge   and   dismissed   the   Writ   Petition   of   the



      appellants.



4.    Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants


      submitted that the appellants do the same work as the



      teachers of Government schools and Government aided



      schools and yet are being paid lower than the teachers



      of Government schools and Government aided schools.



      He further submitted that the Himachal Pradesh State



      Government   Recognized   Aided   Schools   Teachers'



      Association and others had filed Writ Petitions, C.W.P.



      No.413   of   1989   and   414   of   1989,   in   the   Himachal


                               4




Pradesh High Court for appropriate writs/directions to



the   State   Government   to   pay   95%   of   the   grant-in-aid



towards   approved   expenditure   in   a   school   year   to   the



privately   managed   recognized   schools   borne   on   the



grant-in-aid   list   with   a   view   to   enable   the



managements of such schools to pay the teachers and



allied   staff   of   the   schools,   the   same   pay   scales   and



allowances   as  are   paid   to   their   counter-parts   working



in   the   Government   schools   in   the   State   of   Himachal



Pradesh   and   by   order   dated   09.09.1992,   a   Division



Bench of Himachal Pradesh held that teachers of such



private   recognized   aided   schools   are   entitled   to   same



emoluments   as   received   by   their   counter-parts   in   the



State   Government   and   allowed   the   writ   petitions   and



directed the State Government and the management of



the   private   recognized   aided   schools   to   work   out   the



emoluments   of   the   teachers   and   pay   the   same   to



teachers   of   the   private   recognized   aided   schools.   He



further   submitted   that   against   the   order   dated



09.09.1992 of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh



High Court, the State of Himachal Pradesh came up in


                                      5




      appeal   to   this   Court   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   1233   and



      1234   of   1993   but   this   Court   dismissed   these   two



      appeals   on   10.05.1995.     He   vehemently   argued   that



      only with a view to wriggle out from the liability to pay



      salary   and   allowances   to   its  teachers   and   staff   at  par



      with the salary and allowances of Government schools,



      the   School   has   unilaterally   decided   to   stay   out   of   the



      grant-in-aid   scheme   since   1977-1978.     He   submitted



      that   the   learned   Single   Judge   rightly   held   in   his



      judgment dated 11.10.2004 in C.W.P. No.1038 of 1996



      filed   by   the   petitioners   that   the   School,   which   had



      been receiving grant-in-aid till 1977-1978, could not of



      its own volition stop to receive grant-in-aid and rightly



      directed the School to pay to the appellants salary and



      allowances   at   par   with   their   counter-parts   working   in



      the Government schools.



5.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the


      Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   set-aside   the



      judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   after   taking   an



      erroneous   view   in   the   impugned   judgment   that   the



      School   was   under   no   obligation   to   have   accepted   the


                             6




grant-in-aid which would have led to diminution of its



rights   guaranteed   under   Article   30(1)   of   the



Constitution.     He   further   submitted   that   the   Division



Bench   of   the   Himachal   Pradesh   High   Court   has   also



sustained   the   contention   of   the   School   that   the



teachers  of  private  recognized   schools  had  no  right  to



claim   salary   equal   to   that   of   their   counter-parts



working in Government schools and Government aided



schools.  He submitted that Rule 45-Q of the Grant-in-



Aid   Rules   of   the   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh   provides



that   management   shall   introduce   such   scales   of   pay



and   allowances   for   teachers   and   other   staff   members



as   prescribed   by   the   Government   for   corresponding



staff in Government schools.   He submitted that if the



teachers   of   Government   aided   schools   are   entitled   to



same   salary   and   allowances   as   the   teachers   of   the



Government schools, there is no reason as to why only



the   teachers   of   private   unaided   schools   should   be



denied   the   salary   and   allowances   of   Government



schools.   He submitted that if the pay and allowances



of   the   teachers   of   private   minority   schools   such   as


                                      7




      respondent no.1 are not made the same as that of the



      pay and allowances of the teachers of the Government



      schools and Government aided schools, the teachers of



      private minority schools will suffer discrimination and



      their right to equal pay for equal work under Article 14



      read   with   Article   39(d)   of   the   Constitution   will   be



      violated.     He   relied   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in



      Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association  v.



      Union   of   India   &   Ors.   [(1986)   4   SCC   707]   wherein



      Section   12   of   the   Delhi   School   Education   Act   which



      made the provisions of Section 10 providing for parity



      of scales of pay and allowances of the employees of the



      recognized private schools with that of the schools run



      by   the   appropriate   authority   inapplicable   to   unaided



      minority institutions as discriminatory.



6.    Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submitted   that   in



      State of H.P. vs.  H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools



      Managing   Committees   and   Others  [(1995)   4   SCC   507]



      this   Court   relying   on  Mohini   Jain  case   [(1992)   3   SCC



      666] held that the right to education is a fundamental



      right guaranteed under Part-III read with Part-IV of the


                                    8




      Constitution   of   India.     He   submitted   that   since   the



      right   to   education   is   a   fundamental   right,   school



      education has a public element in it and the Court can



      always issue a mandamus to enforce a public duty in



      matters   of   education.     He   submitted   that   in  K.



      Krishnamacharyulu   and   Others  vs.  Sri   Venkateswara



      Hindu   College   of   Engineering   and   Another  [(1997)   3



      SCC 571] employees of a non-aided private educational



      institution   claimed   parity   in   pay-scales   with   the



      employees   of   Government   institutions   and   this   Court



      held that the  employees  had an enforceable  right and



      there was an element of public interest in such a claim



      and   the   teachers   of   a   private   unaided   institution   is



      entitled to avail the remedy provided under Article 226



      of   the   Constitution   and   they   cannot   be   denied   the



      same   benefits   which   were   available   to   other   teachers



      working in Government institutions.  



7.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the


      School is provisionally affiliated to the Council for the



      Indian   School   Certificate   Examinations   and   the



      conditions   of   provisional   affiliation   of   schools


                              9




prescribed   by   the   Council   for   the   Indian   School



Certificate Examinations stipulate in clause (5)(b) that



the   salary   and   allowances   and   other   benefits   of   the



staff   of   the   school   must   be   comparable   to   that



prescribed by the State Department of Education.   He



referred   to   the   report   of   the   Education   Commission



1954-66   to   the   Ministry   of   Education,   Government   of



India,   recommending   that   the   scales   of   pay   of   school



teachers   belonging   to   the   same   category   but   working



under   different   managements   such   as   government,



local   bodies   or   private   managements   should   be   the



same   and   this   principle   of   parity   should   be   adopted



forthwith.  He submitted that sub-section (3) of Section



23   of   the   Right   of   Children   to   Free   and   Compulsory



Education Act, 2009 (for short `the 2009 Act') provides



that   the   salary   and   allowances   payable   to,   and   the



terms   and   conditions   of   service   of,   teachers   shall   be



such   as   may   be   prescribed.     He   referred   to   Section



38(2)(l)   of   the   2009   Act   which   provides   that   the


appropriate   Government   may,   by   notification,



prescribe   the   salary   and   allowances   payable   to,   and


                                    10




      the   terms   and   conditions   of   service   of,   teacher   under



      sub-section   (3)   of   section   23.     He   submitted   that   the



      appropriate   Government   as   defined   in   Section   2(a)   of



      the   2009   Act,   namely,   the   State   Government,



      therefore,   can   issue   a   notification   prescribing   the



      salary   and   allowances   payable   to,   and   the   terms   and



      conditions of service of, teacher, under sub-section (3)



      of section 23 of the 2009 Act.



8.    Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   nos.1   and   2,   on


      the   other   hand,   supported   the   impugned   judgment   of



      the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.     He   further



      submitted   that   if   the   School   is   made   to   pay   to   its



      teachers the same salary and allowances of teachers of



      Government schools and Government aided schools, it



      will   have   to   increase   the   school   fees   and   this   would



      affect the students whose parents cannot afford higher



      school fees.



9.    In our considered opinion, the Division Bench the High


      Court has rightly held in the impugned judgment that



      the   teachers   of   private   unaided   minority   schools   had



      no right to claim salary equal to that of their counter-


                               11




parts working in Government schools and Government



aided   schools.       The   teachers   of   Government   schools



are paid out of the Government funds and the teachers



of Government aided schools are paid mostly out of the



Government   funds,   whereas   the   teachers   of   private



unaided minority schools are paid out of the fees and



other   resources   of   the   private   schools.     Moreover,



unaided   private   minority   schools   over   which   the



Government   has   no   administrative   control   because   of



their autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution



are   not   State   within   the   meaning   of   Article   12   of   the



Constitution.  As the right to equality under Article 14



of   the   Constitution   is   available   against   the   State,   it



cannot   be   claimed   against   unaided   private   minority



schools.     Similarly,   such   unaided   private   schools   are



not   State   within   the   meaning   of   Article   36   read   with



Article 12 of the Constitution and as the obligation to



ensure equal pay for equal work in Article 39(d) is on



the   State,   a   private   unaided   minority   school   is   not



under any duty to ensure equal pay for equal work.


                                      12




10.           In     Frank   Anthony   Public   School   Employees'



       Association  v.  Union   of   India   &   Ors.   (supra),   relied   on



       by learned counsel for the appellants, the scales of pay



       and   other   terms   and   conditions   of   service   of  teachers



       and   other   employees   of   the   Frank   Anthony   Public



       School,   New   Delhi,   which   was   a   private   unaided



       minority institution, compared very unfavourably with



       those of their counterparts of the Delhi Administration



       Schools   and   the   Frank   Anthony   Public   School



       Employees'   Association   sought   equalization   of   their



       pay-scales   and   conditions   of   service   with   those   of



       teachers   and   employees   of   Government   schools.



       Sections   8   to   11   of   the   Delhi   School   Education   Act



       dealt   with   the   terms   and   conditions   of   service   of



       employees of recognized private schools.  Section 10 of



       the   Delhi   School   Education   Act   provided   that   the



       scales   of   pay   and   allowances,   medical   facilities,



       pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed



       benefits   of   the   employees   of   the   recognized   private



       schools   shall   not   be   less   than   those   of   the



       corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate


                              13




authority.   Section   12   of   the   Delhi   School   Education



Act, however,  provided  that the provisions  of Sections



8   to   11   including   Section   10   were   not   applicable   to



unaided minority institutions.   The case of teachers of



Frank Anthony Public School was that if Sections 8 to



11 were made applicable to them,  they would at least



be   as   well   off   as   teachers   and   other   employees   of



Government   schools.     The   Frank   Anthony   Public



School   Employees'   Association   therefore   challenged



Section   12   of   the   Delhi   School   Education   Act   as



discriminatory   and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the



Constitution and this Court held that Section 12 of the



Delhi   School   Education   Act   insofar   as   it   makes   the



provisions of Sections 8 to 11 inapplicable to unaided



minority schools is discriminatory.       This was thus a



case   in   which   the   employees   of   unaided   minority



institutions   were   not   given   the   benefits   available   to



employees of other private institutions under Sections



8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Delhi School Education Act only



on the ground that unaided minority institutions enjoy



autonomy   of  administration  under  Article  30(1)  of the


                                      14




       Constitution and this Court held that this could not be



       a rational basis for differentiation of service conditions,



       pay   and   other   service   benefits   between   employees   of



       unaided   minority   institutions   and   the   employees   of



       other   private   schools   and   the   Court   declared   Section



       12   as   discriminatory.     In   other   words,   the   State   by



       making a statutory provision in Section 12 of the Delhi



       School   Education   Act   which   was   discriminatory,   had



       violated   the   mandate   to   the   State   under   Article   14   of



       the Constitution not to deny the equal protection of the



       laws within its territories. This decision in the case of



       Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association  v.



       Union   of   India   &   Ors.   (supra)   does   not   assist   the



       appellants   in   any   manner   because   the   guarantee   of



       equality,   as   we   have   said,   is   not   available   against   an



       unaided private minority school.



11.        We   also   do   not   think   that   the   Court   could   issue   a


       mandamus   to   a   private   unaided   school   to   pay   the



       salary   and   allowances   equal   to   the   salary   and



       allowances payable to teachers of Government schools



       or   Government   aided   schools.     This   is   because   the


                               15




salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided



school is a matter of contract between the school and



the teacher and is not within the domain of public law.



In  Sushmita Basu & Ors. v.  Ballygunge Siksha Samity



& Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 680], the teachers of a recognized



private   school   known   as   Ballygunge   Siksha   Sadan   in



Calcutta   filed   a   Writ   Petition   in   the   High   Court   of



Calcutta   praying   for   issuance   of   writ   of   mandamus



directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary



of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to



remove   all   anomalies   in   the   scales   of   pay   as



recommended   by   the   Third   Pay   Commission   as



extended   to   other   Government   aided   schools   and



Government   schools   and   this   Court   held   that   in   the



absence   of   statutory   provision   no   such   direction   can



be   issued   by   the   High   Court   under   Article   226   of  the



Constitution.  Where a statutory provision casts a duty



on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and



allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of



Government   aided   schools,   then   a   writ   of   mandamus



to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory


                                     16




       duty.   But in the present case, there was no statutory



       provision requiring a private unaided  school to pay to



       its   teachers   the   same   salary   and   allowances   as   were



       payable   to   teachers   of   Government   schools   and



       therefore   a   mandamus   could   not   be   issued   to   pay   to



       the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the



       same   salary   and   allowances   as   were   payable   to



       Government institutions.



12.             In  K.   Krishnamacharyulu   and   Others  vs.  Sri



       Venkateswara   Hindu   College   of   Engineering   and



       Another (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for



       the   appellants,   executive   instructions   were   issued   by



       the   Government   that   the   scales   of   pay   of   Laboratory



       Assistants   as   non-teaching   staff   of   private   colleges



       shall   be   at   par   with   the   government   employees   and



       this   Court   held   that   even   though   there   were   no



       statutory   rules,   the   Laboratory   Assistants   as   non-



       teaching   staff   of   private   college   were   entitled   to   the



       parity   of   the   pay-scales   as   per   the   executive



       instructions   of   the   Government   and   the   writ



       jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the


                                       17




       Constitution   is   wide   enough   to   issue   a   writ   for



       payment of pay on par with government employees.  In



       the   present   case,   there   are   no   executive   instructions



       issued by the Government requiring private schools to



       pay   the   same   salary   and   allowances   to   their   teachers



       as are being paid to teachers of Government schools or



       Government aided schools.



13.          We   cannot   also   issue   a   mandamus   to   respondent


       nos.1   and   2   on   the   ground   that   the   conditions   of



       provisional   affiliation   of   schools   prescribed   by   the



       Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations



       stipulate in clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances



       and   other   benefits   of   the   staff   of   the   affiliated   school



       must   be   comparable   to   that   prescribed   by   the   State



       Department of Education because such conditions for



       provisional   affiliation   are   not   statutory   provisions   or



       executive   instructions,   which   are   enforceable   in   law.



       Similarly,   we   cannot   issue   a   mandamus   to   give   effect



       to   the   recommendations   of   the   report   of   Education



       Commission   1964-66   that   the   scales   of   pay   of   school



       teachers   belonging   to   the   same   category   but   working


                                    18




       under   different   managements   such   as   government,



       local   bodies   or   private   managements   should   be   the



       same, unless the recommendations are incorporated in



       an executive instruction or a statutory provision.   We,



       therefore,   affirm   the   impugned   judgment   of   the



       Division Bench of the High Court.



14.         We, however, find that the 2009 Act has provisions


       in   Section   23   regarding   the   qualifications   for



       appointment   and   terms   and   conditions   of   service   of



       teachers and sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 2009



       Act provides that the salary and allowances payable to,



       and   the   terms   and   conditions   of   service   of,   teachers



       shall be such as may be prescribed.  Section 38 of the



       2009   Act   empowers   the   appropriate   Government   to



       make   rules   and   Section   38(2)(l)   of   the   2009   Act


       provides   that   the   appropriate   Government,   in



       particular, may make rules prescribing the salary and



       allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of



       service of teachers, under sub-section (3) of section 23.



       Section   2(a)   defines   "appropriate   Government"   as   the



       State Government within whose territory the school is


                                         19




       established.           The   State   of   Himachal   Pradesh,



       respondent  no.3 in  this  appeal,  is  thus empowered  to



       make   rules   under   sub-section   (3)   of   Section   23   read



       with   Section   38(2)(l)   of   the   2009   Act   prescribing   the


       salary   and   allowances   payable   to,   and   the   terms   and



       conditions   of   service   of,   teachers.   Article   39(d)   of   the



       Constitution   provides   that   the   State   shall,   in



       particular,   directs   its   policy   towards   securing   that



       there   is   equal   pay   for   equal   work   for   both   men   and



       women.   Respondent   no.3   should   therefore   consider



       making   rules   under   Section   23   read   with   Section



       38(2)(l)   of   the   2009   Act   prescribing   the   salary   and


       allowances of teachers keeping in mind Article 39(d) of



       the Constitution as early as possible.



15.          With   these   observations,   the   appeal   is   disposed   of.


       There shall be no order as to costs.





                                                      .............................J.

                                                           (R. V. Raveendran)




                                                      .............................J.

                                                           (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

August 11, 2011.  


20