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

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MONIRUJJAMAN MULLICK & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/07/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)    49        1996 SCALE  (5)431

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Kuldip Sinqh, J.      Monirujjaman Mullick  and other private respondents, in the appeal  herein, were  working as  Instructors in various non-formal education  centres in  different districts in the State of  West Bengal. They approached the High Court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a  direction -  based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" - that they were entitled to the same scales of pay  and allowances  as were admissible and being paid to the primary  school teachers.  A learned single Judge of the High Court  allowed the  writ petition.  Appeal filed by the State of  West Bengal  was disposed  of with  the  following directions:      "The writ  petitioners who  are not      in regular employment elsewhere and      who have  the minimum qualification      prescribed for  the primary  school      teachers are  entitled to  the same      scale  of  pay  and  allowances  as      admissible to  the  primary  school      teachers from  the  date  of  their      initial  appointment   and  further      that  they  are  also  entitled  to      annual increments  in the pay-scale      in accordance  with law;  but their      claim   for   absorption   in   the      department   as   regular   primary      school teachers cannot be sustained      and therefore stands rejected.           It  is  made  clear  that  the      services   of    such    non-formal      teachers will  be liable  to  stand      automatically  terminated   as  and      when   the   non-formal   education      scheme  is   discontinued  in  this

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

    State.           Persons    similarly    placed      should  also   be  given  the  same      benefit to avoid further litigation      in regard to the self-same issue." This appeal  by the  State of  West Bengal  is  against  the judgment of the learned single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court dated June 28 of 1993.      We may  briefly state the facts of the case. Government of India  introduced  a  scheme  in  the  year  1974-75  for imparting non-formal  education to  the children  in the age group of  9/11 years who were either school drop-outs or did not go  to school.  The scheme  provided for  the opening of non-formal  education   centres  (part-time)  by  the  State Government with  the help  of Central Government grant. West Bengal Government took a policy decision on December 8, 1978 to implement  the scheme.  Subsequently the State Government formulated a  new scheme  regarding non-formal  educational, which became operative with effect from October 4, 1989. The non-  formal   centres  were   part-time  institutions.  The instructors were  given a  fixed honorarium  of Rs.105/  per month at  the primary  level and  Rs. 125/- per month at the upper primary  level. Persons with a motivation to serve the community   particularly the weaker sections  were appointed instructors. They  were required  to teach  the children for two hours  a day.  The centres  were run  by  the  Panchayat Samities in  rural areas  and by the Committees/Corporations in urban  areas. There  were no  specific buildings or sites for the  centres. The  instructor  could  use  any  site  or building belonging  to a  social  organization  or  a  local authority.      "The Division  Bench of  the  High  Court  applied  the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" on the following reasoning:      "From  the  booklet  published  and      distributed    by    the    Primary      Education   Directorate   regarding      formal (Prathamic  Siksha) and non-      formal  (Bidhikukta   Siksha),   it      appears that  the purposes  of both      the streams  being to  help  attain      human  values   through   practical      literacy  in  language,  elementary      arithmetic,      awareness      for      maintaining  personal   and  public      health and good environment, social      awareness,  scientific  outlook  to      get rid  of  prejudices  etc.,  the      syllabus and  the books  prescribed      for formal and non-formal education      are almost  same with  the ultimate      goal  of  equipping  the  boys  and      girls for  entry into  class  V  in      regular High or Junior High School.           It thus  clear and we are also      of considered  opinion that neither      stream in inferior to the other and      that  the   duties,  functions  and      responsibilities  of  the  teachers      of  the   formal   and   non-formal      education are alike, if not heavier      on  the   side  of  the  non-formal      stream."      Mr.  Dipankar   Gupta,   learned   Solicitor   General, appearing for  the State  of West  Bengal has contended that

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

the non-formal  education centres  were net  a part  of  the regular educational  system of  the State  of  West  Bengal. These centres  were started  under a  policy decision of the Central Government  which was  implemented by  the State  of West Bengal to help educate the children belonging to weaker sections of  the society.  These centres  were part-time  by nature and  the instructions  were paid  an honorarium. They were not  appointed to a regular pay scale and were not paid any salary.  Even the  teaching in the centres was not for a full educational-day,  it was  only for two hours. According to Mr.  Gupta when the scheme provided for two hours of non- formal teaching  at the  part-time centres  by the part-time instructors, who were paid a mere honourarium the High Court was not  justified in  enlarging the  scope of the scheme in the exercise  of its  power of judicial review under Article 226 of  the Constitution of India. Mr. Gupta relied upon the judgment of  this Court  in Delhi  Development  Horticulture Employees Union  vs. Delhi  Administration, Delhi  and  Ors. (1992) 4  SCC 99.  P.B. Swant,  J. speaking  for  the  Court observed as under:-      "Those employed  under the  scheme,      therefore, could  not ask  for more      than what  the scheme  intended  to      give them.  To  get  an  employment      under such  scheme and  to claim on      the basis  of the said employment a      right  to   regularisation,  is  to      frustrate  the  scheme  itself.  No      court  can   be  a  party  to  such      exercise. It  is wrong  to approach      the  problems   of  those  employed      under such  scheme with  a view  to      providing them with full employment      and  guaranteeing   equal  pay  for      equal work.  These concepts  in the      context of  such schemes  are  both      unwarranted  and   misplaced.  They      will do  more  harm  than  good  by      depriving the  many of  the  little      income that  they may  get to  keep      them from  starvation.  They  would      benefit a  few at  the cost  of the      many starving  poor  for  whom  the      schemes are  meant. That would also      force the  State  to  wind  up  the      existing schemes  and  forbid  them      from introducing  the new ones, for      want of resources."      We are  of the  view that  the  non-formal  educational centres cannot be equated with the primary schools which are regularly   run by  the Education  Department of  the  State Government. Apart  from the  basic  qualitative  differences between the  two institutions even the nature of work of the non-formal instructors  and the  primary school  teachers is not identical.  The method  of appointment,  the  source  of recruitment, method  of teaching,  hours of teaching and the mode of  payment are  entirely different.  In the  facts and circumstances of  this case  the High Court fell into patent error in  applying the  principle of  "equal pay  for  equal work".      The appeal  is allowed  and the judgment of the learned single Judge  of the  High Court  and the impugn judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. The writ petitions filed  by the  respondents before  the High  Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.

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

    All the I. As are disposed of. State of West Bengal & Anr. V. The West Bengal Non-formal Education Centres Teachers’ Association & Ors.                          O R D E R      Special leave granted.      We have,  by  a  separate  judgment  pronounced  today, allowed Civil  Appeal 4195  of 1994  State of  West Bengal & Ors. vs.  Monirujjaman Mullick & Qrs. and have set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court (State of West Bengal vs. Monirujjaman Mullick 97 CWN 1075)      We  therefore  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the impugned judgment  of the  Division Bench of the High  Court which is based on Monirujjaman’s case. No costs. The West Bengal Non-formal Education Centres Teachers Association V. The State of West Bengal & Ors.                          O R D E R      We have  by a  separate judgment  pronounced  today  in C.A.4195 of  1994, set  aside the Division Bench judgment of the  Calcutta  High  Court  in  State  of  West  Bengal  vs. Monirujjaman Mullick  & Ors. (reported in 97 CWN page 10755. This appeal  has been  filed  by  the  non-formal  education teachers association  against the  Monirujjaman’s case. This appeal has become infructuous and as such is dismissed.