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

PETITIONER: HARYANA STATE ADHYAPAK SANGH AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1988

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1663            1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 682  1988 SCC  (4) 571        JT 1988 (3)   172  1988 SCALE  (2)101  CITATOR INFO :  C          1990 SC 968  (12)

ACT:      Teachers employed  in recognised, aided private schools must be  given same  Scales of Pay and Dearness Allowance as teachers in Government Schools.

HEADNOTE:      The Kothari  Commission appointed  by the Government of India to  examine the conditions of service of teachers with the object  of improving  the standards  of education in the country recommended  inter alia  that the  scales of  pay of school teachers  belonging to  the same category but working under different managements such as Government, local bodies or private organisations should be the same, and, falling in line with  other States,  the State  of Haryana  decided  to implement the same with effect from 1 December, 1967. As the deficit between  the original  grades and the revised grades was found  too burdensome  for the  managements of the aided schools to  bear, the  State decided  to meet  the increased expenditure  entirely   in  regard   to  Pay   and  Dearness Allowance. The  State Government  followed the  principle of parity between  the teachers  working in  aided schools  and Government schools  until 1979.  In 1979,  the pay  scale of teachers in  Government schools  was revised  by  the  State after the  report of  the Pay Commission, but in the case of the teachers  of aided schools the revision was effected two years later.  The appellants  and the  writ petitioners, who were teachers  employed in  various recognised aided private schools, alleged  that the  salary and other emoluments such as  Dearness   Allowance,   House   Rent   Allowance,   City Compensatory  Allowance,  Medical  Reimbursement,  Gratuity, etc., paid to them had fallen far behind the emoluments paid to the  teachers in Government schools and this Court should interfere in  order to  remove such discrimination since the constitutional  responsibility  of  providing  education  in schools devolved on the Government and it exercised deep and pervasive control over the running of aided schools.      Disposing of the appeal and petitions, ^      HELD: There  is general  agreement between  the parties

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

that there  is no  reason  for  discrimination  between  the teachers employed in aided 683 schools and  those employed in Government schools far as the salaries and  Additional Dearness  Allowances are concerned. The  State   Government  has   expressed  its  readiness  to reimburse the  payment of  ten instalments of the Additional Dearness Allowance,  but  not  the  twenty  five  Additional Dearness Allowance instalments released after 1 April, 1981. In our  opinion, the  teachers of aided schools must be paid the same  pay scale  and Dearness  Allowance as  teachers in Government schools  for the  entire period  claimed  by  the petitioners, 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 emoluments of the teachers. [685B-C, E-G]      The  State  Government  will  also  take  up  with  the managements of  the aided  schools the  question of bringing about Party  between the  teachers of  aided schools and the teachers of  Government schools so that 9 scheme for payment may  be   evolved  after  having  regard  to  the  different allowances claimed by the petitioners. [686C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2366-67 of 1988 etc.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  21.2.1985  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5353 of 1984.      Pankaj Kalra,  B.S. Gupta, P.C. Kapur and S. Mitter for the Appellants.      Rajinder Sachar, D.K. Garg, Mahabir Singh and A.K. Goel for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, CJ.  Special leave to appeal is granted in both the special leave petitions.      The  petitioners   are  teachers  employed  in  various recognised aided  private schools  in the  State of Haryana. The schools  are maintained  under private  management. They receive  financial   aid  from  the  State  Government.  The petitioners  have  come  to  Court  alleging  that  teachers employed in Government aided private schools are entitled to parity with  the teachers  employed in Government schools in the matter  of pay  scales  and  other  emoluments  such  as Dearness Allowance,  House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, 684 Medical Reimbursement  and Gratuity,  etc. It  appears  that prior to  A 1967  there was  considerable disparity  in  the emoluments of  teachers employed  in the same State, and the Government of  India appointed  the  Kothari  Commission  to examine the  conditions of  service  of  teachers  with  the object of  improving  the  standards  of  education  in  the country.  Among   other  things,   the  Kothari   Commission recommended that  the  scales  of  pay  of  school  teachers belonging to  the same  category but working under different managements such  as Government,  local  bodies  or  private organisations should  be the  same. Almost  all the  States, including the  State of  Haryana, decided  to implement  the recommendations of  the Kothari  Commission.  The  State  of Haryana declared  in January,  1968 that  the revised  rates suggested by  the Kothari Commission would be made effective from 1  December, 1967,  and that  the grades of teachers of privately managed schools would be revised on the pattern of

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

the grades of teachers working in Government schools. As the deficit between  the original  grades and the revised grades was found  too burden  some for the managements of the aided schools to  bear, the  State decided  to meet  the increased expenditure  entirely   in  regard   to  Pay   and  Dearness Allowance. The  State Government  followed the  principle of parity between  the teachers  working in  aided schools  and Government schools  until 1979.  In 1979,  the pay  scale of teachers in  Government schools  was revised  by  the  State after the  report of  the Pay Commission, but in the case of the teachers  of aided schools the revision was effected two years later.  The petitioners  allege that  the  salary  and other emoluments  paid to the teachers of aided schools have fallen far  behind the  emoluments paid  to the  teachers in Government schools  and this Court should interfere in order to remove  such discrimination.  We are  told that there are about sixty  thousand teachers in Government schools while a mere four  thousand teachers  are employed in aided schools. According  to  the  petitioners,  to  provide  education  in schools  is   the  constitutional   responsibility  of   the Government, and  this is reflected in the deep and pervasive control exercised  by the  Government over  the  running  of aided schools.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the  control  is exercised over almost all areas of management. The Committee of management has to be approved by the State Government, so have the  strength of  the teaching  and the  other staff as well  as   the  qualifications   and  other   conditions  of eligibility for  appointment  to  the  staff.  The  mode  of selection and  the determination of seniority are subject to the directions  of the  State Government and teachers cannot be dismissed,  removed or  reduced in rank without the prior approval of  the State authorities. The tuition fee, as well as free-ships,  concession and scholarships are fixed by the State  Government,   which  is   also  empowered   to   give instructions in 685 regard to  the  time  table,  working  hours,  pupil  ratio, attendance and  workload. The  financial resources  and  the heads of  income and  expenditure are indicated by the State Government.      We have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at considerable length,  and we  find general agreement between the parties  that there  is  no  reason  for  discrimination between the  teachers employed  in aided  schools and  those employed in  Government schools  so far  as the salaries and Additional Dearness  Allowances  are  concerned.  The  State Government does not accept the claim to parity in respect of other heads  of allowance put forward by the petitioners. We were at  one time disposed to ruling on the question whether the  responsibility   for  providing  education  in  schools belongs to the State Government, and therefore whether there is a corresponding responsibility on the State Government to ensure that  in aided  schools the  teachers are entitled to the  same   emoluments  as  are  provided  for  teachers  in Government schools.  We do  not, however,  propose to  enter upon this  question in  these cases as we are satisfied from the developments  which have  followed after  the hearing on the merits  that it  would be more appropriate to dispose of these cases  by a  short order.  The  State  Government  has expressed its  readiness to  reimburse the  payment  of  ten instalments of  the Additional  Dearness Allowance,  but not the twenty  five Additional  Dearness Allowance  instalments released after  1 April, 1981. It appears that the grant-in- aid given  by the  State Government  to these  aided schools covers the deficit to the extent of seventy five per cent of

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

the approved  expenditure. The  approved expenditure extends to the salaries paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff, which includes  the Pay  and Dearness  Allowance and Interim Relief before  1 April,  1981 and  the  Pay  and  Additional Dearness  Allowance   beyond  1  April,  1981,  the  deficit expenditure minus  income and  certain other items, but does not include  House Rent  Allowance, Medical  Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance  and the  other heads  claimed by the petitioners. In  our opinion,  the teachers of aided schools must be  paid the  same pay  scale and Dearness Allowance as teachers in Government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners, 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 emoluments  of the  teachers. The  State Government meets the  Dearness Allowance  liability to  the  extent  of seventy  five  per  cent  of  the  amount.  Ten  instalments representing the  State Government’s liability shall be paid by the  State Government  in two equal parts, the first part being  payable  within  three  months  from  today  and  the remaining part being pay- 686 able by  31 March, 1989. The State Government shall also pay the remaining  twenty five  instalments, the  entire  amount being payable  in five  equal parts,  each part  being  paid every six  months, the  first such  part being payable by 30 September, 1989. The State Government shall not be liable to pay for  the period  covered by  these  35  instalments  any amount on account of House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance  and   the  other   allowances  claimed   by   the petitioners.      The  State  Government  will  also  take  up  with  the managements 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 aforesaid  thirty five  instalments relate, so that a scheme for payment may be evolved after having regard to the different allowances claimed by the petitioners.      In the  case of  teachers who  have retired or who have died in  service during the pendency of these cases, payment of the  first ten  instalments shall  be made to the retired teachers and  to the  legal representatives  of the deceased teachers within three months from today.      The appeals  and the  writ petitions  are  disposed  of accordingly. H.L.C.                 Appeals & Petitions disposed of. 687