http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1468 of 2005

PETITIONER: SUSHMITA BASU & ORS

RESPONDENT: BALLYGUNGE SIKSHA SAMITY & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/09/2006

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

1.              The appellants are teachers of a recognized private  school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta in the  State of West Bengal.  Originally they along with 26 others  filed W.P. No. 4139 of 1992 in the High Court of Calcutta  praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the  authorities of the school to fix the salaries of teaching and  non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies  in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay  Commission as extended to other Government aided schools  and government schools.  Subsequent to the filing of the Writ  Petition, petitioners other than the five appellants herein,  withdrew from the Writ Petition on their reaching an  understanding with the authorities of the school.  The five  appellants pursued the Writ Petition.  A learned single judge  of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the  Director of School Education to enforce parity in payment to  the Writ Petitioners in pay-scales and dearness allowances  on par with the government aided institutions and to  consider whether there has been any discrimination or  anomaly in the fixation of pay-scales of teachers by the first  respondent management, with respect to the teaching staff in  the institution.   On appeal by the management, the Division  Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the  decision of the learned single judge.  Feeling aggrieved  thereby, the five teachers who were pursuing the Writ  Petition, came to this Court with this appeal.  Pending the  appeal, appellant No.5 died and appellant No. 4 withdrew  from the appeal, with the result that only three of the  teachers of the institution remain as appellants in this  appeal to pursue the cause originally put forward.   

2.              There is no dispute that the institution in which  the appellants are working is a recognized private  educational institution in the State of West Bengal.  In the  State of West Bengal there are government schools, aided  schools and unaided private schools.  In this case, we are not  concerned with aided schools or government schools.  As far  as private schools like the one run by respondent No.1 are  concerned, they do not receive any aid from the government,  but, they do get from the government dearness allowance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

component of the approved teachers working in the school.   There is no dispute that the recommendations of the First  Pay Commission and that of the Second Pay Commission,  though they did not cover private unaided schools, were  implemented by the schools as part of their agreement with  the teachers.  Though, the management also implemented  the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission in the  sense that the salaries of the teachers were hiked in terms of  the said report, the institution refused to give retrospective  effect to the enhancement.  In other words, the institution  refused to give effect to the recommendations of the Third  Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1988, as recommended  by the Commission and as implemented by the government.   

3.              It was mainly complaining about the refusal of the  management to implement the recommendations of the Third  Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1988 retrospectively,  that the teachers went to court.  We asked learned Senior  Counsel for the appellants as to whether there was any Act,  statutory rule or even Government Order directing private  unaided educational institutions to implement the  recommendations of the Third Pay Commission especially in  the context of the fact that the salaries and emoluments of  teachers of private unaided institutions was not a subject  matter of reference to the Third Pay Commission.  Learned  counsel fairly submitted that there was no statutory  provision, Rule or binding Order, but referred to the decision  of this Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employees’  Association Vs. Union of India & Others. [(1987) 1  S.C.R.238] and submitted that the principle recognized  therein should be applied to teachers like the appellants as  well.  Learned counsel conceded that there was no provision  corresponding to Section 10 of the Delhi School Education  Act, 1973 in the Bengal Act.  But the submission was that  the appellants were approved teachers and they were also  doing the same work as teachers of government schools and  aided schools and in the circumstances ’equal pay for equal  work’ principle could be directed to be implemented and in  that context the appellants could be granted relief.  This was  met by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents  by pointing out that the institution had not only  implemented the recommendations of the Third Pay  Commission but has also implemented the recommendations  of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, though it was not  bound to do so and there could be no grievance that teachers  are being paid salaries that are not comparable with that of  the teachers of government schools and aided schools.   With  reference to the pleadings, it was pointed out by the learned  Senior Counsel that the teachers of the first respondent \026  Institution, in fact, were enjoying some additional benefits  which are not available to teachers of government  institutions and aided institutions.  It was also pointed out  that out of the very many teachers in the school, only three  of them, the appellants before us, have refused to enter into  an agreement with the First Respondent and as observed by  this Court in Reserve Bank of India & Others Vs. C.N.  Sahasranaman & Others [(1986) 2 S.C.R. 881], the fact that  a few are not satisfied, is no ground for interference by court  or for grant of relief in their favour when by and large the  position adopted by the institution is found to be fair and  just and is accepted by all other teachers.   We find  considerable merit in the submissions on behalf of the  respondents.  In the absence of a statutory provision, we are  not in a position to agree with learned counsel for the

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

appellants that interference by the High Court under Article  226 of the Constitution is warranted in this case.  We find on  the whole that there has been just treatment of the teachers  by the first respondent-- Institution and there is no reason to  interfere even on the ground that the appellants are being  treated unfairly by their employer, the educational  institution, or on the basis that this is a case in which the  conscience of the court is shocked, compelling it to enter the  arena to afford relief to the teachers.   

4.              In this context, we must also notice that the Writ  Petition in the High Court is filed for the issue of a writ of  mandamus directing a private educational institution to  implement the recommendations of the Third Pay  Commission including their implementation with  retrospective effect.  Even the decision relied on by learned  counsel for the appellants, namely, K. Krishnamacharyulu  & Ors. Vs. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of  Engineering and Anr. [(1997) 2 S.C.R. 368] shows that  interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to  issue a writ of mandamus by the court against a private  educational institution like the first respondent herein,  would be justified only if a public law element is involved and  if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition would lie.   We think that even going by the ratio of that decision, a writ  of mandamus could not have been issued to the first  respondent in this case.  

5.              We must remember that the profession of teaching  is a noble profession.  It is not an employment in the sense of  it being merely an earner of bread and butter.  A teacher  fulfils a great role in the life of the nation.  He is the ’guru’.   It is the teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting  to his students not only knowledge, but also a sense of duty,  righteousness and dedication to the welfare of the nation, in  addition to other qualities of head and heart.  If teachers  clamour for more salaries and perquisites, the normal  consequence in the case of private educational institutions, if  the demand is conceded, would be to pass on the burden to  the students by increasing the fees payable by the students.   Teachers must ask themselves whether they should be the  cause for putting education beyond the ken of children of  parents of average families with average incomes.  A  teacher’s profession calls for a little sacrifice in the interests  of the nation.  The main asset of a teacher is his students  former and present.  Teachers who have lived up to ideals  are held in great esteem by their disciples.  The position of  the Guru, the teacher, in our ethos is equal to that of God  (Matha Pitha Guru Daivam).  The teachers of today must  ensure that this great Indian concept and the reverential  position they hold, is not sacrificed at the altar of avarice.    

6.              The Division Bench of the High court has held that  there is no ground to interfere in the case on hand and have  rightly set aside the directions issued by the single judge.   We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the  Division Bench of the High Court.  We therefore confirm that  decision and dismiss this appeal.  We make no order as to  costs.