http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 12921  of  1996

PETITIONER: THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRS.  RAJNI VALI AND OTHERS.  .

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/01/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, D.P.Mohapatro

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     MOHAPATRA, J.

     Dev Samaj Girls Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh is a  private  educational  institution   duly  recognized  and receiving   grant-  in-aid  from   the  Union  Territory  of Chandigarh  Administration  since 1-12-1967.  Initially  the school  was imparting education upto class 10.  In the  year 1988,  it was decided to start 10+1 and 10+2 classes in  the school  and  upgrade  it  to senior  secondary  level.   The Director of Public Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh granted  permission to the management for starting 11th  and 12th  classes  in Humanities and Commerce, with a  condition that  no  grant-in-aid will be provided for  any  additional staff.   The  classes were started on the recommendation  of the  Director  of Public Instructions, the  institution  was granted  affiliation by the Board of Seconary Education, New Delhi, with effect from 1-5-1998.  The corresponding classes in  Dev Samaj Degree College, Chandigarh, were closed on the decision  of the Chandigarh Administration that education in such  classes would be given in schools.  The respondents  1 to  12  are  lecturers who are teaching  different  subjects teaching in 11th and 12th classes of the school.  When their request  for grant of salary at par with their counter parts working  in  privately managed recognised aided  schools  in Chandigarh   was   not   heeded   to   by   the   Chandigarh Administration, they filed a writ petition in the High Court of  Punjab and Haryana seeking inter alia a writ of mandamus directing    the   respondents     i.e.    the    Chandigarh Administration,  its  Finance  Secretary,  its  Director  of Public  Instructions (School) and the Managing Committee  of the School, to pay the same salary and dearness allowance to the  petitioners which is being paid to their counter  parts working  in private recognised aided schools in  Chandigarh, especially  when  the  other members of  the  staff/teachers teaching upto 10th class are receiving the scales sanctioned for  the  posts  against  which   they  are  working.    The respondents also prayed that the expenses so incurred should be  apportioned  by  the Chandigarh Administration  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Management  of the institution in the ratio of 95% and 5% as is being done between the State Government and Management of the institution Aided Schools.

     The  claim  of  the  respondents was  refuted  by  the appellants  mainly on the ground that permission to open the 11th  and  12th  classes in the school was  subject  to  the condition  that  no  grant-  in-aid  will  be  provided  for additional  staff and therefore the claim of the respondents for parity of salary with their counter parts in other aided institutions cannot be accepted.

     The  High  Court, on consideration of the case of  the parties  and the contentions raised on their behalf  allowed the  writ  petition  and directed the  respondents  who  are appellants   herein   to  pay  the   same  salary   to   the petitioners/respondents  1 to 13 herein, which is being paid to  their counter parts in the privately managed  government aided  schools in Chandigarh and the expenses so incurred be apportioned  by  the  Chandigarh   Administration  and   the Management  in  the ratio of 95% and 5%  respectively.   The judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal filed   by  Chandigarh   Administration  through  Secretary, Education,  its Finance Secretary and the Director of Public Instructions,  School.  From the discussion in the  impugned judgment  it appears that the writ petitioners pressed their claim  mainly on the principle of equal pay for equal  work. They  also  made a grievance about discriminatory  treatment meted  out to them by the Chandigarh Administration and  the Management.   The  appellants on the other hand refuted  the claim,  as noted earlier, on the ground of conditional grant of  permission  to  open the higher  secondary  classes  and paucity  of funds to meet the additional burden in case  the prayer  in  their writ petition is allowed.   Substantially, the  same  position was repeated during the hearing  of  the case  in this court.  The learned counsel for the appellants further  submitted  that under the rules governing grant  in aid, the staff position of the aided institutions as on 30th of  November,  1967,  has  been   frozen;   since  all   the respondents were appointed subsequent to that date, they are not  entitled to salary at par with teachers of other  aided schools  who  were  in  service by the cut  off  date.   The undisputed factual position which emerged from the materials on record is that the school was established after receiving permission  from  the competent authority of the  Chandigarh Administration;   the institution is duly recognized by  the Administration;   the  institution was upgraded to a  Higher Secondary School and 11th and 12th classes were started with the  permission  of  the   Competent  Authority;   that  the subjects  of Humanities stream and Commerce stream were also decided  by  the Competent Authority;  the  institution  has been  receiving  grant-in-aid  from   the  State  Government (Chandigargh  Administration)  since  December,  1967;   the respondents  1  to  12 are Lecturers teaching  in  different subjects  in other Classes 11th and 12th and the respondents were  appointed  by  the Management  under  the  Recruitment Rules.  It is not the case of the appellants that the Higher Secondary  Classes  constitute  a separate  and  independent institution.   It is also not their case that the posts held by the respondents 1 to 12 are not necessary for running the Higher  Secondary  Classes  and they are surplusage  in  the institution.   As  noted earlier, their objection  is  that, since  the  said  respondents   were  appointed  after  30th November,  1967,  they  are not entitled to the  benefit  of salary under the Grant-in-aid Scheme.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

     The  position has to be accepted as well-settled  that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden  duty  of  the  State   Administration.   It  is   a Constitutional  mandate  that the State shall ensure  proper education  to the students on whom the future of the society depends.  In line with this principle, the State has enacted Statutes  and  framed  Rules  and  Regulations  to  control/ regulate  establishment  and running of private  schools  at different   levels.    The     State   Government   provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running  of the institution and to ensure that the  standard of  teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It  needs  no  emphasis that appointment  of  qualified  and efficient  teachers  is a sine qua non for maintaining  high standard  of  teaching  in   any  educational   institution. Keeping  in mind these and other relevant factors this Court in  a  number of cases has intervened for setting right  any discriminatory   treatment  meted  out   to   teaching   and non-teaching staff of a particular institution or a class of institutions.   To notice a few such decisions on the point, we  may refer to the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh  & Ors.   etc.Vs.  State of Haryana & Ors.  etc.  ( AIR 1988 SC 1663), in which this Court issued a direction that the State Government  will  also  take up with the Management  of  the aided  schools the question of bringing about parity between the teachers of aided schools and the teachers of Government schools  for  the period following that to which the  thirty five  instalments relate, so that a claim for payment may be evolved  after  having  regard to the  different  allowances claimed  by  the petitioners.  In the case of Haryana  State Adhyapak Sangh & ors.Vs.  State of Haryana & Ors.  (AIR 1990 SC  968),  a  bench of three learned Judges  of  this  Court clarifying  the  judgment in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh  & ors.   etc.   Vs.  State of Haryana & Ors.   etc.   (supra), issued  a direction, inter alia, that the parity in the  pay scales  and dearness allowance of teachers employed in aided schools  and  those employed in Government schools shall  be maintained  and  with that end in future the pay  scales  of teachers employed in Government schools shall be revised and brought at par with the aided schools and dearness allowance payable  to the teachers employed in Government schools with effect from January 1st, 1986.

     In  the  case of State of Maharashtra  Vs.   Mannubhai Pragati  Vashi & Ors.  JT 1995 (6), SC 119), this Court held that  the  decision of the Government of Maharashtra not  to extend  the Grant-in-aid Scheme to private law colleges  was discriminatory   and  this  Court   directed  the  State  of Maharashtra  to  extend  the   Grant-in-aid  Scheme  to  all recognized private law colleges on the same criteria as such grants  are given to other Faculties, namely, Arts, Science, Commerce,  Engineering  and Medicine from the academic  year 1995.   In  the  case of State of Haryana & Anr.   Vs.   Ram Chander  &  Anr.  (1997 (5) SCC 253), this Court  considered the  case  of  language teachers in the  Haryana  Government Vocational Education Institute, who taught Hindi and English to  11th  and 12th standard students in the Institute,  that they  should be given parity in pay scale with the  teachers who  taught  11th  and  12th  standard  students  in  Higher Secondary Schools who were designated Lecturers.  This Court upheld  the  judgment of the High Court granting  parity  of scale  of  pay  to the aggrieved teachers on the  finding  , inter  alia,  that whether the teachers teaching  Hindi  and English  languages  to 11th and 12th standard students in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

technical  institution or in a Higher Secondary School makes no  difference  in  the  nature   of  duties  and  functions performed  by  these two sets of papers when they teach  the same syllabus of Hindi and English to 11th and 12th standard students  who  appear  at the same type of  examination  and write  the  same  papers as were written by  11th  and  12th standard students who are taught Hindi and English in Higher Secondary  Schools.   Tested  on  the  touch  stone  of  the principles  laid  down in the aforementioned decisions,  the position  is  manifest  that there is no  justification  for denying the claim of the respondents for parity of pay scale and  to accept the contention of the appellants will  amount to  confirming  the  discriminatory  treatment  against  the respondents.  Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the case  of  the  appellants.   The directions  issued  in  the impugned  Judgment  to pay the respondents 1 to 12 the  same salary  as  is  being paid to their- counter  parts  in  the privately  managed Government aided schools in Chandigarh in the circumstances is unassailable.  Coming to the contention of  the  appellants that the Chandigarh  Aministration  will find it difficult to bear the additional financial burden if the  claim  of the respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we  need only say that such a contention raised in different cases of similar  nature has been rejected by this Court.  The  State Administration  cannot shirk its responsibility of  ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of  resources.   It  is  for  the  Authorities  running  the Administration  to  find out the ways and means of  securing funds  for  the  purpose.  We do not deem  it  necessary  to consider  this  question in further detail.  The  contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected.  It is, however,   clarified  that  the   proportion  in  which  the additional   burden  will  be   shared  by  the   Chandigarh Administration  and the Management of the school will be  in accordance  with the Grant-in- aid Scheme applicable to  the school  from  time to time.  The judgment of the High  Court that  the  sharing  of the financial burden will be  in  the ratio of 95 % to 5% is modified accordingly.  With the above modification,   the   appeal  is   dismissed,  but  in   the circumstances of this case, without any order for costs.