http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/03/1998

BENCH: M. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Misra, J.      The common question raised in the aforesaid appeals is, whether the  respondents, who  were primary  school teachers under the  Dandakaranaya  Development  Project  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘DDP’),  under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of  Rehabilitations, Government  of India, in the relevant period would be entitled to the higher pay scale as per  the  recommendations  of  the  National  Commission  on Teachers headed  by Professor  D.P. Chatopadhya (hereinafter referred to  as  "National  Commission")  in  terms  of  the circular dated  12th August,  1987 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources  Development, Department  of Education.  The appellants denied  such  claim  as  the  aforesaid  circular applies only  to the teachers of the schools under the Union Territories (expect  Chandigarh) including  Government aided schools and  organisations like Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Central  Tibetian Schools  Administration etc. The claim of the respondents was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,  Calcutta   Bench  (hereinafter   referred  to  as ‘Tribunal’) upholding  the  contention  of  respondents  and directing the  appellants to  pay at  the revised scale with effect from  1st January,  1986 in  line  with  the  Railway Ministry’s circular  dated 11th April, 1988 or the aforesaid HRD Ministry’s  circular dated  12th August,  1987 and  also give consequential  refixation of  the pay  under the rules. Aggrieved by  the said  order, the present appeals are filed by the Union of India and others.      To appreciate the controversy, we refer to short facts. The respondents  were initially  appointed as primary school teachers under  the DDP as aforesaid in the Ministry of Home Affairs from the year 1966 onwards. They have been posted at the various  primary schools.  They have  been posted at the various primary  schools under the said project. As a result of policy decision by the Central Government, it was decided on the 1st April, 1986 to handover all the aforesaid schools under the  DDP to the State Governments and any teachers and other employees  rendered surplus  were  taken  on  roll  of Central Surplus  Staff Cell  of the  department of Personnel and Training vide order dated 28th April, 1986. In pursuance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

of this,  respondents  were  transferred  to  the  aforesaid surplus  staff  cell  with  effect  from  1st  April,  1986. Thereafter they  were re-deployed in the various departments and offices  of the  Central  Government  consequently  were relieved  from  the  surplus  cell  with  effect  from  22nd September, 1986  onwards to join the new postings in various non-teaching cadres.  This is  not  in  dispute  that  these respondents while working as teachers earlier were given pay scale of  Rs. 226-400  with effect from 1st January, 1973 as per the  recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission which was subsequently revised  on the basis of the 4th Pay Commission and were  paid in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1st January,  1986. The grievance of the respondents is that they have  not been given the benefit of the recommendations of the  National Commission of the teachers by the aforesaid Chatopadhya Committee.  The said  report was accepted by the Ministry  of  Human  Resources  Development,  Department  of Eduction, which  is evident  from the  circular  dated  12th August, 1987,  through which  higher  pay  scale  to  school teachers were  made admissible.  As this  report  was  given effect from  1st January,  1986, the  respondents claim  the benefit as  they were  factually working  on  this  date  as primary school teachers under the aforesaid DDP.      The appellants  denying this  claim submits  that  this circular is  not applicable  to the  teachers working  under DDP. The  National Commission  report is  applicable only to such  departments   which  have  accepted  its  report.  The reliance placed  by  the  respondents  only  refers  to  the acceptance by  the Defence  and Railway  department and  not Home  Ministry   under  which  aforesaid  DDP  was  working. Further, since  education being  a state  subject under  the legislative entry  under the  Constitution and  the  schools under DDP  having been  transferred to  the State Government concerned, teachers  under it  would be  benefitted when the State Government  accepts the  report. The  said report  was accepted specifically  only for  the Union Territories as it is also evident by the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987. It  is further  submitted that on the date of the said circular there  could  not  be  any  consideration  for  the primary school  teachers under  DDP as  the very institution under DDP,  was no  more in  existence, stood transferred to the State Governments. The National Commission recommended the following pay scales for the primary school teachers :-      Primary School Teachers         :  Rs. 1200-2040/-      Senior Scale (After 12 years)   :  Rs. 1400-2600/-      Selection Scale (After 12 years      in senior scale and attainment of      qualifications laid down for      TGTs)                           :  Rs. 1640-2900/-      Learned   counsel for  the appellants,  Mr., Subba Rao, submits  that   the  respondents   were  neither  Government servants nor the National Commission report is applicable to all the teachers.      We will  revert back to this last submission but before it, we  refer to the latter No. 1028/A/W/(School) dated 15th March, 1989, of Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Board. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-      "Sanction  of  President  has  been      received under  Ministry of Defence      letter quoted  above, addressed  to      Ordnance Factory  Board copy to all      concerned   ordnance   Fys.   among      others regarding the application of      revised  scales  of  pay,  teaching

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

    allowance and  special allowance as      sanctioned  in  Ministry  of  Human      Resources  Development  (Department      of  education)  letter  No,  F.  5-      180/86-UT-I dated  12.8.1987 (based      on  the   recommendation   of   the      National  Commission   on  Teachers      under  the  Chairmanship  of  Prof.      D.P. Chattopadhya enclosed with the      above letter  to  the  teachers  of      Ordnance Factory Schools."      Similarly another  letter  No.  E(P&A)  I.87/PS.5.PE.5, dated 11th  January, 1988  of Railway  Board.  The  relevant portion is quoted hereunder :      "Sub  :-  Revision of pay scales of                school teachers.           The Ministry  of Railways have      on  the   recommendations  of   the      National  Commission  on  Teachers,      under  the  Chairmanship  of  Prof.      D.P.  Chattopadhyay,  decided  that      the revised  (4th  Pay  Commission)      scales  and  selection  Grades  for      teachers on  the Railways should be      further revised  as in the Annexure      attached.      2.---------------------------------      -      3.   The   revised    pay   scales,      Teaching  Allowance   and   special      Allowance  and   special  Allowance      will be applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.      The arrears  of pay  for the period      from 1.1.1986  to 31.3.1986,  which      will  accrue  over  and  above  the      arrears of  pay consequent upon the      introduction of  the revised scales      of pay  on the  recommendations  of      the 4th  Pay Commission,  vide this      Ministry’s    letter     No.    PC-      IV/86/IMP/Schedule/1          dated      24.9.1986, shall  be  deposited  in      the provident  fund accounts of the      employees.   Amendments    to   the      Railway   service   (revised   pay)      Rules,   1986,    regulating    the      fixation  of   pay  in   the  newly      introduced   scales   will   follow      separately."      The  aforesaid   two  letters   indicate,  so  far  the departments of  Defence and  the  Railway  adopted  the  pay scales as  recommended by the aforesaid National Commission, which was  over and above the 4th Pay Commission. It is also significant that  the acceptance  of the said report is with effect from  1st January,  1986 which  is in consonance with the aforesaid circular dated 12th August, 1987.      Now, reverting  to the  aforesaid last  submission,  we find that  the appellant  itself has accepted respondents as Government servants  and gave them the scales as recommended both by the 3rd and the 4th Central Pay Commission. When the 4th Central Pay Commission came, Government was aware of the aforesaid National  Commission, hence,  the scale of the 4th Pay Commission  granted to  the teachers  was as  an interim measure till recommendation of the National Commission. This fact is  also evident from the aforesaid circular dated 12th

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

August, 1987. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder :      "I am  directed  to  say  that  the      National  Commission  on  Teachers’      under  the  Chairmanship  or  Prof.      D.P. Chattopadhyay has made various      recommendations concerning  pay and      services conditions  of teachers at      school level,  pending Government’s      decision on  the report of National      Commission on  Teachers the  Fourth      Central   Pay    Commission    only      recommended the  replacement scales      for school  teachers.  Accordingly,      these pay  scales were  implemented      vide    Ministry     of     Finance      (Department    of    Expenditure)’s      Notification  No.  F.  15(1)-IC-/86      dated 13th September, 1986 and 22nd      September, 1986.  Subsequently,  it      was  clarified   that  the  revised      scales of  pay for different grades      of teachers  are based  only on the      recommendations   of   the   fourth      Central   Pay    Commission,   that      decision on  the recommendation  of      National Commission  on Teachers is      yet to be taken and that to be done      as soon as possible.      2.  In   partial  modification   of      finance Ministry’s Notification No.      F15(1)/IC/86 dated  13th September,      1986 and  22nd September,  1986, by      which replacement scales were given      to school teachers, it has now been      decided that the revised pay scales      of school  teachers  in  all  Union      Territories   (Except   Chandigarh)      including Government  aided  school      and  organisation   like   Kendriya      Vidyalaya  Sangathan   and  Central      Tibetan Schools Administration etc.      will be as under."      Next repelling  the contention  for the appellants that Chattopadhya Committee  report is  not applicable to all the teachers, Shri  Tapas Ray,  learned senior counsel appearing for the  respondents, placed before u s the relevant portion of the  aforesaid report  of the National Commission to show that the  said report  was not  confined nor was constituted for any  specified Territory,  State or  Union or  class  of teachers but  was wide  enough to  include all facets of all classes of teachers in the entire territory of this country. He placed the book ‘The  Teacher  And   Society’  containing report of  the National Commission on Teachers - I, 1983-85. Page 89  gives the  resolution of  the Government  of India, Ministry of  Education and Culture (Department of Education) to constitute  National Commission  on Teachers.  Under that two  National   Commissions  were   set  up  to  advise  the Government on  various  aspects  relevant  to  the  teaching community as  specified in  terms of reference. The National Commission No.1  was to deal with the issues relating to the teachers at  the school  stage and  the National  Commission No.2 to deal with the issues relating tot he teachers at the higher  education  level  (including  technical  education). Broadly, the  terms of  reference included  to lay  down the objectives for the teaching profession with reference to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

search for  excellence, breadth of vision and cultivation of values in  keeping with the country’s heritage and ideals of democracy,  secularism   and  social   justice.  To  suggest measures  for  fostering  dynamism  in  the  profession  and attracting and  retaining talented  persons in  the teaching profession. To  recommend measures  to enhance  the role  of teachers in  facilitating, motivating and inspiring students in the  acquisition of  knowledge,  skills  and  values  and promoting them  through the spread of the scientific temper, secular  outlook,   environmental  consciousness  and  civic responsibility.  Also   the  adequacy  of  arrangements  for promotion of teachers’ welfare with special reference to the National Foundation  of   Teachers Welfare  and  to  suggest modifications wherever necessary.      Chapter  1   page  1  of  the  report  shows  that  the Commission and its members visited 21 State Capitals and few other districts  and discussed  the matter  with leaders and senior officials of the Government and also visited selected institutions to  make on  the spot assessment. At page 26 it reveals under  para 5.16  that  the  Commission  dealt  with primary teachers  and referred  to the  bad condition of the primary school  teachers. The  Commission also  recorded  at para 5.23 :-      "The Commission  feels that a stage      has been reached in the development      of education  in this country, when      a bold  decision must  be taken  in      favour  of  replacing  the  present      jungle   of   salary   scales   for      teachers      and       educational      administrators by composite running      scales        (See         Appendix      XIII(xvi)..........................      ...."      At para 5.25 it records as under :-      "As an  illustration of the kind of      running scale,  we have  in mind we      would  suggest  a  scale  beginning      with Rs.500  as the starting salary      of a  primary  teacher  and  ending      with Rs. 3950 as the maximum of the      grade for  the  State  Director  of      Education."      Then, page  92 gives the summary of the recommendations which clearly reveals that the Commission has dealt with the subject with  national goal,  the role of the teachers under Chapter II,  towards a new design of education under Chapter III,  Social   justice  :   Universalisation  of  elementary education under  Chapter IV,  the status, working conditions and welfare  of the  teacher under  Chapter  V,  supply  and recruitment of teachers under Chapter VI and the training of teachers  under   Chapter  VII,   etc.  After  perusing  the ‘National Commission  Report’, apart  from  its  very  name, there can  be no  doubt that its recommendations are neither confined to  any specific  Territory nor  only for the Union Territory, but was actually for the whole country.      Further, this  fact is also borne out from the question and answer  in  the  Parliament  placed  by  the  appellants themselves in  one of  the aforesaid  appeals, which reveals the concern of the Parliament about its implementation apart from the  Union territory.  The relevant portion of the said question and answer is also reproduced below :-      Q.  "Will  the  Minister  of  Human      Resources Development  (a)  Whether      Union Government  have  issued  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

    directives to the States for giving      uniform pay  scales to the teachers      throughout    the     country    as      recommended    by     Chattopadhyay      Commission;------------------------      -------------?      Ans.   Keeping    in    view    the      recommendations of  the NCT-I,  the      Fourth Central  Pay Commission  and      National Policy  on Education,  the      pay  scales  for  teachers  in  the      Union Territories have been revised      by the Government. For the teachers      in the  States, the Government have      their     own     mechanism     for      periodically   revising   the   pay      scales    and    related    service      conditions. It  is  for  the  State      Governments concerned  to  suitably      revise the pay scales applicable to      their teachers. The report of NCT-I      has been  forwarded  to  all  State      Government for appropriate action."      In  other   words,  it   reveals   Government’s   total acceptance of  the report of the National Commission and, in turn, to  pay the  same  scales  to  its  teachers  and  the acceptance was  not confined  to  the  Union  Territory  but included the concerned State Governments.      Next question  is whether  the  respondents,  who  were teachers on  the relevant  date, were Government servants or not? The  stand of  the appellant  that they are not. is not sustainable. This  is evident  even by the letter dated 16th September, 1985  by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of  Home  Affairs  (Rehabilitation  Division)  Dandakaranaya Development Authority,  Office of  Zonal Administrator which contains Office Order No. 528/85 which records the following :-      "Consequent on  promotion  to  the  post  of  untrained      Graduate  Teacher  from  Asstt.  Teacher,  the  pay  of      Shri....... has  been fixed  at Rs.  350/- with  effect      from  9.1.1984   with  date   of  next   increment   on      9.1.1985/1.1.1985---------------as  per   pay  fixation      statement given below :-      PAY FIXATION STATEMENT 1. Name of the Govt. Servant  : Sri Nirmal Kr. Mandal 2. Post held and scale of pay   : Asstt. Teacher Rs. 260-6                                   -290-EB-6-326-B-366-EB-B                                   -390-10-400/- 3. Date of promotion as U.G.    Teacher                      : 9.1.1984 Forenoon      Admittedly, like  respondents the aforesaid letter also refers to  one of the Assistant Teachers who was promoted to the  post   of  untrained   graduate  teacher  in  the  same Dandakaranaya  Development   Authority  and  the  Government itself describes  such teachers  as Government  servant.  We also find  DDS (Redeployment  of Surplus  Staff) Rules, 1990 which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso  to   Article  309   of  the   Constitution  and  in supersession of  the redeployment  of Surplus  Staff against vacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts  (Group ‘C’) Rules,  1967, the Redeployment of Surplus Staff against vacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts  (Group ‘D’) Rules,  1970, the redeployment of Surplus Staff against vacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts (Groups ‘A’ and  ‘B’) Rules,  1986, and  the Redeployment of Surplus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

Staff   in    the   Central   Civil   Services   and   Posts (Supplementary) Rules,  1989. This was framed for regulating redeployment and  re-adjustment  of  surplus  staff  against vacancies in  the Central  Civil Services  and Posts. Rule 2 (g) defines  ‘surplus  staff’  and    ‘surplus  employee  or employees’, to  mean the  Central Civil servants (other than those employed  on ad  hoc, casual, work-charged or contract basis) and  Rule 2  (g)(b) (3)  refers to such employees who have been  rendered surplus  along with  the post  from  the Ministries, offices  of the Government of India, as a result of abolition  or winding up either in whole or in part of an organisation of the Central Government.      In view  of the  aforesaid letter of the appellant, the aforesaid rules  and the  Central Government  giving to  the respondents  the   benefit  or  the  3rd  and  the  4th  Pay Commission report,  it leaves  no room  for doubt  that  the respondents were  and are Government servants and treated as such.      Learned counsel  for the  appellants,  Mr.  Subba  Rao, referred to  the case  of Union  of India  and  Another  Vs. Rajendra Singh  Rajput 1997  (10) SCC 426. This case, in our opinion, does not help the appellants. This was a case where respondent, a Junior Engineer in Dandakaranaya Project since 29.9.1983,  was  later  transferred  being  surplus  to  the Central Public  Works Department  and he  claimed the higher pay scale  of  Rs.  1640-2900  on  the  ground  that  Junior Engineers in  the  CPWD  were  getting  that  scale  on  the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. That was upheld and later Junior  Engineers/Section Officers  (Horticulture)  in the CPWD  who could not be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer  in   the  scale  of  Rs.  2000-3500  due  to  non- availability of  vacancies in  that grade,  was allowed  the scale of  Assistant Engineer, that is to say Rs.2000-3500 on a personal  basis after  completion of  15  years  of  total service but  when later,  the aforesaid Junior Engineer from the Dandakaranaya  Project also claimed this upgraded scale, the same was rejected with the following observations :-      "He cannot  claim  the  benefit  of      ungraded scale  available to Junior      Engineers in CPWD. Moreover, merely      because under  order dated  8.8.91,      the respondent  was given  the  pay      scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the basis      of the  principle of ‘equal pay for      equal work‘  cannot mean  that  the      respondent  is   also  entitled  to      claim the  benefit of  the upgraded      scale of  Rs.  2000-3500  which  is      available  in  CPWD  only    having      regard to  the conditions  in  that      department and is not applicable to      Junior    Engineers     in    other      departments    of    the    Central      Government.  The  respondent  could      not,  therefore,  be  extended  the      benefit of  pay scale  of Rs. 2000-      3500 on  the  ground  that  he  has      completed 15  years of  service  as      Junior Engineer."      This was  a case  where claim of Junior Engineer of DDP against another  Junior Engineer  in  CPWD,  who  was  given upgraded scale  subsequently, was  rejected on  the facts of that case  which has no application in the present case. The present case is neither a case of ‘equal pay for equal work’ nor claim based on parity of another on any upgraded post or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

scale. Here  the claim is based on their own right under the said National Commission Report.      The crux  of controversy  is the  justifiability of the claim of  the respondents to receive the benefit of scale of the difference  of pay  scale between  what was given by the 4th Pay  Commission  and  later  enhanced  by  the  National Commission to  the teachers  similarly to the class to which respondents belong.  Their claim  is confined  to the period between  1st   January,  1986   to  1st   April,  1986.  The significance of  this is that on 1st April, 1986 respondents were  declared   as  surplus  and  were  gradually  absorbed thereafter in the various Government departments at the same scale  as   they  were   drawing  on  the  said  date.  That adjudication of  this claim  have bearing as it would decide what pay scale they would be entitled during this period and in case their absorption at the relevant time was at a lower scale then they would be entitled at such adjudicated higher pay scale  including consequential  increments in accordance with the  rules. Respondents  are not  claiming any  benefit given to the teachers under the said report after 1st April, 1986. In  this regard even the stand of the appellant is not in doubt.  The appellant  has accepted  that  absorption  of respondents to  the various  Central Government offices were on posts  carrying equal  pay scales which they were drawing at the relevant time. The same is evident from para 5 of the SLP itself  where it  records that in the process of winding up   of   Dandakaryanya   Project,   all   the   educational institutions rum  under it  were handed  over to  the  State Government of  Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and respondents who were in  excess were  declared surplus  and rendered  to the Central  (Surplus   staff)   Cell,   after   allowing   them revised/replacement scales.  It is  further stated  on their redeployment, they  were relieved  of their  duties from the DDP for  joining in  different Central  Government  offices, organisations  in  various  posts  carrying  equivalent  pay scales.      Here the question is, in case the pay scale as given by the the National Commission is applicable to the respondents they would  be entitled  for their  higher pay scales at the relevant time. Admittedly, between 1st January, 1986 and 1st April, 1986,  the respondents  were drawing the pay scale as per the  4th Pay  Commission report  which  was  interim  in nature as  it awaited  pay scale to be given by the National Pay Commission.  If on  the relevant date, they are entitled for the pay scale as per the National Commission report, the claim of  the respondents  would succeed,  as upheld  by the tribunal as  their absorption have not been on this upgraded pay scale.      For the  respondents, strong  reliance is placed in the case Purshottam  Lal and  others  Vs.  Union  of  India  and another, 1973  (1)  SCC  651.  Relevant  portion  is  quoted hereunder :-      "Para 15.  -  Mr.  Dhebar  contends      that it  was for  the Government to      accept the  recommendations of  the      Pay Commission  and while  doing so      to determine  which  categories  of      employees should  be taken  to have      been  included   in  the  terms  of      reference.   We   are   unable   to      appreciate this  point. Either  the      Government has  made  reference  in      respect of all Government employees      or it  h as not. But if it has made      a  reference   in  respect  of  all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    Government employees and it accepts      the recommendations  it is bound to      implement  the  recommendations  in      respect    of     all    Government      employees. If it does not implement      the report regarding some employees      only  it   commits  a   breach   of      Articles   14   and   16   of   the      Constitution.  This   is  what  the      Government has done as far as these      petitioners are concerned."      Mr. Tapas  Ray, learned senior counsel, submits even in the  present  case,  reference  was  made  to  the  National Commission for  all classes  of teachers comprehensively and the Central  Government has  accepted the  said  report  and applied to  all the  teachers under  it, either  under Union Territory or  other departments,  referred  to  above,  then there is  no justification for excluding the respondents who were working  as teachers at the relevant time under Central Government.      Mr. Subba  Rao, learned  counsel  for  the  appellants, referred  the   case  of  Union  of  India  and  Others  Vs. Secretary, Madras  Civil Audit  & Accounts  Association  and Anr,  etc.  1992  (1)  SCR  530  to  show,  though  case  of Purshottam Lal  (supra) was  referred, yet report as a whole was not implemented. Relevant portion is quoted hereunder :-      "Having    given     our    earnest      consideration  we   are  unable  to      agree with  the view  taken by  the      Full  Bench   of   CAT   that   the      principle of  equal pay  for  equal      work is  attracted irrespective  of      the  fact   that  the   posts  were      identified and upgraded in the year      1987.  There  is  no  dispute  that      after such upgradation, officers in      both the  wings who  are doing  the      equal work  are  being  paid  equal      pay. But  that cannot be said to be      the situation  as  well  on  1.1.86      also. The learned counsel, however,      submitted that  the recommendations      of the  Pay  Commission  should  be      accepted as  a whole  in respect of      all the categories of employees. In      this  context   he  relied  on  two      decisions   of   this   Court.   In      Purshottam Lal  and Others V. Union      of India  and another, (1973) 1 SCC      651 a  question came up whether the      report of the second Pay Commission      did not deal with the case of those      petitioners. It was held thus :      ‘Either  the  Government  has  made      reference   in   respect   of   all      Government employees or it has not.      But if  it has made  a reference in      respect of all Government employees      and it accepted the recommendations      it  is   bound  to   implement  the      recommendations in  respect of  all      Government employes. If it does not      implement the report regarding some      employees only  it commits a breach      of  Articles   14  and  16  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

    Constitution.  That   is  what  the      Government has done as far as these      petitions are concerned.’      In  P.   Parmeswaran  and  Ors.  V.      Secretary  to   the  Government  of      India, (1987)  Suppl. SCC  18 in  a      short judgment  this Court observed      that because  of the administrative      difficulties the  Government cannot      deny the  benefit  of  the  revised      grade and  scale with  effect  from      January 1,  1973 as  in the case of      other person."      This decision  does not  dilute the  principle as  laid down in  the case  of Purshottam  Lal (supra). In this case, the appellants  submitted that  the office  memorandum dated 12th June,  1987 was passed on the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay  Commission which  consisted of  two parts.  The first part  recommended  corresponding  pay  scale  for  the existing posts  in the  Accounts Wing giving effect from 1st January, 1986. The other part was contained in para 11.38. Pursuant to those recommendations, the Government decided to implement the same, namely, the second part with effect from 1st April, 1987. The following passage in this case makes it clear that  it has  not deviated  from the principle as laid down in Purshottam Lal (supra) but its resultant view was on the special facts and circumstances of that case.      "There is  no dispute  that in  the      instant case the terms of reference      of Pay  Commission applied  to  all      the   categories    of   Government      servants. But the question is as to      from which  date the other category      referred to  above namely Assistant      Accounts Officer  etc.  should  get      the   higher    scales   of    pay.      Identification of  these posts  and      the upgradation  cannot be  treated      as       mere        administrative      difficulties. The implementation of      the  recommendations   of  the  Pay      Commission according  to the  terms      thereof   itself    involved   this      exercise of creation of posts after      identification which naturally took      some  time.  Therefore,  the  above      decisions  relied   upon   by   the      learned counsel  are of  no help to      there respondents."      The   question raised  there was, whether two different dates of  the applicability  of he same recommendation could be upheld  when the  report was  accepted by the Government. This Court  held that  different dates  of applicability was necessary  since   the  Government   in  terms  of  the  Pay Commission  recommendation   was  to   create  posts   after identification which naturally has to take some time. Hence, two different  dates of  its applicability  when other posts were yet  to be  created in  terms of  recommendation itself cannot be  said to   be bad in law. There is no such fact so far as the present case is concerned.      For the  respondents, reliance  was also  placed in the case of  Laljee Dubey  and Others  Vs. Union  of  India  and Others  1974   (2)  SCR   249.  Here  also  the  appellants’ contention was  that letter dated 17th November, 1953 should be   implemented    because    Government    accepted    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

recommendation of  ‘Kalyanwala Committee’.  Hence, denial of its  benefit   to  the   appellants  is   violative  of  the fundamental rights  guaranteed under  Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution. It was submitted there that other checkers performing duties  similar to  those of  the appellants have been guaranteed  the benefit  of the  said order.  This case relying on  the decision and principle of the Purshottam Lal (supra) allowed the appeal of the appellants.      After giving  our due  consideration both  to the facts and the  law, which  we have  referred above,  it is  not in dispute that  the respondents were teachers working with the Central Government between 1st January, 1986 an d 1st April, 1986.  The   Government  absorbed   them  in   its   various departments at  the same  pay scale  which they were drawing then. The  Central  Government  has  accepted  the  National Commission (Chattopadhyay Committee) report and gave benefit to all  its teachers working in the Union Territory and some of its  departments and  that all  the States  in India have also  accepted  the  same.  The  documents  on  record  also reveals, apart  from  the  teachers  working  in  the  Union Territory,  Central   Government  approved   other  teachers working in  some other  departments. The  pith and substance and spirit of the reply at the Parliament indicates at least Central Government’s  total acceptance  for all its teachers to whom  the said  report  was  applicable.  The  appellant, namely, Union  of India,  has not brought on record anything to the  contrary to  show the  exclusion of respondents from giving the  said benefit on the relevant date, as were given to all the teachers, who were placed in the same position as the respondents.  The only argument advanced was, not on the basis on  any  record  but  as  submission  that  since  the institutions under  DDP were  handed over  to the  States of Orissa and  Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January, 1986 and that not being  in existence,  respondents having  been taken  as surplus and  were  in  due  time  absorbed  in  the  various departments, the  benefit of  the increase  in pay  scale as recommended by  the National  Commission was  not  given  to them. Apart  from the  fact that  t here  is nothing  on the record to  show even  this reasoning  for declining the said claim, we  find  even  otherwise,  this  submission  has  no merits. The  respondents  are  not  claiming  all  or  other benefits which  were given  and to  be received in future to the teachers  but confining  their claim to the period when, admittedly,  they   were  teachers   and  all  the  teachers irrespective of  the fact  that they were taken by the State Government or  with the  Central Government  were given that benefit. If that be so, there could be no justifiable reason to exclude that benefit to the respondents.      It is  always possible  to exclude  any class  based on reasonable classification  to the  benefit under  any policy decision, the  classification having  direct nexus  with the object sought  to be  achieved. But  in the present case, in the absence  of any material placed, we do not find any such so far  the respondents are concerned. Reading that would be arbitrary and  violative of  Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, we find that the Government has stoutly supported the  recommendations and  the same is said to have been implemented  in the  Union Territories  and some of its departments. There  is nothing to show that there were other departments in which similar teachers were employed but such benefit was  not given.  In fact, all the departments of the Central Government  could not have teachers. Nothing to show apart from  cases of  respondents that  any other  class  of teachers  in   the  Central   Government  departments   were excluded. In  fact, on  the contrary,  we find the aforesaid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

letter  dated  12th  August,  1987  is  from  the  Education Department viz.  the Human Resources Department which is the parent department  under which  all teachers  fall  and  was issued after concurrence of Department of Finance. Thus, the stand of  the appellants  that they  were not  considered as institution under  DDP itself  stood transferred  or for the lack of  either consideration  or lack of approval cannot be accepted. This  apart, we  find the  aforesaid letter  dated 12th August,  1987 in  its second  para while  approving the sanction records it to the following :      "..............all            Union      Territories   (except   Chandigarh)      including Government  aided schools      and  organisations   like  Kendriya      Vidyalaya  Sangathan  and  Calcutta      Tibetan Schools Administration etc.      will be as under."      The use  of words  "organisations like"  and  the  word "etc." indicate  similar other  organisations,  institutions etc. the  same was not exhaustive. In consideration to this, we conclude  and include  t he  teachers who were working in DDP as  the respondents.  We further  conclude, if  for  the aforesaid reasons,  their claims  were not  considered, this non-consideration of  their this  legitimate claim, when all such belonging  to that class received at the relevant date, is  arbitrary   and  violative   of  Article   14   of   the Constitution.      In our  considered opinion  respondents are entitled to receive the  benefit of  the recommendation  of the National Pay Commission. We further conclude, in every case so far as the Central  Government is concerned, to give benefit of the National Pay  Commission to  its teachers from  1st January, 1986, th e respondents are also entitled to receive the same benefit  under it from the same date.      For the  aforesaid reasons  and the  findings  recorded herein before,  we do  not find  any merit in these appeals. These  appeals   are  accordingly  dismissed.  Cost  on  the parties.