@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P. Shanmugam, J.@mdashPetitioners, 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.425-640 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 teacher, 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 and Others Vs. Shri Bijoy Lal Ghosh and Others Etc., :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 and Another Vs. Ram Chander and Another, : 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.
