http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   710        1996 SCALE  (5)517

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.B. PATTANAIK, J.       Delay condoned.       Leave granted.      These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of  the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 19th August, 1994  in Civil  writ  Petition Nos. 5354 of 1991 and 10324 of  1992. By  the impugned judgment the High Court has directed that  the respondents would be entitled to the same scales of  pay and  privileges as  are  available  to  their counter-parts  in   government   schools.   Admittedly   the respondents are  JBT teachers  in  Privately  Managed  Aided Schools in  Ambala District  in the  State of Haryana. While they continued as employees of private schools much prior to the Haryana  State was  formed,  the  State  of  Haryana  by issuance of Notification dated 3rd January, 1968 revised the pay scales  of the  teaching personnel  with effect from 1st December,   1967.    These   respondents   acquired   higher qualification while  continuing  in  service  and  therefore claimed higher scales of pay as is being admissible to their counter-parts in  government schools.  The State  Government having refused  the claim, they approached the High Court by way of  writ petitions.  The High  Court  relying  upon  the earlier decision  of the  same court  in Civil Writ Petition No. 876  of 1988  granted the  relief and  hence the present appeals.      Mr. Prem  Malhotra appearing  for the  appellant  State contends  that  the  schools  in  question  being  Privately Managed Aided Schools, the employees thereof are entitled to reimbursment of 95% of budgetary deficit by way of grant and therefore the  State is  not bound  to grant these employees the scales of pay as is admissible to their counter-parts in government schools.  Mr Palli  appearing for the respondents on the  other hand  contended that  it has been held by this Court that  teachers of  aided schools must be paid the same scales of  pay  and  other  allowances  as  teachers  of  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

government schools  and therefore  the High  Court was fully justified in  granting the  relief sought  for. The question that arises  for consideration  is whether  the teachers  of privately aided  schools in  the State  of Haryana  would be entitled to  the same  scales of pay and other allowances as are admissible to their counter-parts in government schools?      In Chaman   Lal  and Others  vs. State  of Haryana  and another, (1987)  3 SCC  113. the  question for consideration was whether  teachers who  started as Basic Trained teachers and later  acquired the  higher qualification, whether would be entitled  to higher  scales of pay? This Court considered the recommendations  of the Kothari Commission and different Circulars of  the state  of Haryana  and came  to hold  that those teachers  who acquired  the higher qualification would be entitled  to the  higher scales  of pay  as soon  as they acquired the   qualification  irrespective of  the date when they were adjusted against posts of Masters. In this case no doubt the  appellants were  teachers of a Government school. The question of parity in pay scales between the teachers of a recognised  aided school  and the teachers of a Government school, as in the present case, came up for consideration in the case  of Haryana  State Adhyapak  Sangh and  others  vs. State of  Haryana and  others,  (1988) 4 SCC 571. This Court came to  the conclusion  that the  teachers of aided schools must be  paid the  same pay scale and dearness allowance  as teachers in  government schools for the entire period served by them  and that  the expenditure on that account should be apportioned between the State and the Management in the same proportion in  which they  share the  burden of the existing employments of  the teachers. The aforesaid decision of this Court was  considered again  by a  three Judge  Bench in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others vs. State of Haryana, 1990  (Suppl) SCC  306 and by way of clarifying the earlier decision, this Court observed:      "These observations  leave no scope      for  doubt   that  this  Court  has      directed that the teachers of aided      schools  must   be  paid  the  same      scales   of    pay   and   dearness      allowance as teachers in government      schools and  that the  said payment      must be  made for the entire period      claimed by  the appellants  and the      petitioners in these cases.’      In paragraph  12 of  the Judgment  the Court issued the following directions:      ’(i) The pay scales of the teachers      of government  aided schools  shall      be revised  so as  to bring them at      par with the pay scales of teachers      of government  schools with  effect      from  April   1,   1979   and   the      differential amount  as a result of      such revision  in pay  scales shall      be  paid   in  four   six   monthly      instalments, the  first  instalment      being payable by June 30, 1990.      (ii) The teachers of the government      aided   schools   shall   be   paid      additional  dearness  allowance  on      the basis  of  revised  pay  scales      with effect  from April  1, 1979 to      December 31,  1985 and  the arrears      of   such    additional    dearness      allowance found payable as a result

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    of  such  revision  shall  be  paid      along with  the last  part  of  the      five  instalments   of   additional      dearness allowance  which is  to be      paid in September 1990.      (iii) The  parity in the pay scales      and dearness  allowance of teachers      employee in aided schools and those      employed  in   government   schools      shall be  maintained and  with that      end  in  view  the  pay  scales  or      teachers  employed   in  government      aided schools  shall be revised and      brought at  par with the pay scales      and dearness  allowance payable  to      the teachers employed in government      schools with effect from January 1,      1986.      (iv) As  from  April  1,  1990  the      teachers employed  in aided schools      shall be  paid the  same salary and      dearness allowance  as is  paid  to      teachers employed in the government      schools.      (v) The arrears of pay and dearness      allowance payable  as a  result  of      such revision  for the  period from      January 1,  1986 to  March 31, 1990      shall be  pain in  four six monthly      instalments, the first such monthly      instalments,   the    first    such      instalment being  payable  by  June      30, 1990.      In the  impugned judgment  the High  Court  has  merely stated that  the petition is allowed in the same terms as in C.W.P. No. 876 of 1988. C.W.P.  No. 876 of 1988 was disposed of with  the direction   that  the State would determine the benefits available  to the  teachers in  the  light  of  the judgment of  Supreme Court including the grant of increments as has  been granted  to their  counter-parts working in the government schools.  The positive direction in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh   and  others  vs.  State  of  Haryana.  1990 (Suppl) SCC   306  to the  effect that as from April 1, 1990 the   teachers employed  in aided  schools shall be paid the same salary  and dearness  allowance as  is paid to teachers employed in  government schools,  leave   no room  for doubt about the  grant of  the said   benefit  to the  respondents herein who  are the  teachers  in  privately  managed  aided schools in Ambala District in the State of Haryana.      Accordingly, we  find no  infirmity with  the  impugned judgment requiring  interference by this Court under Article 136  of  the  Constitution.  These  appeal  are  accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.