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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TEJRAM PARASHRAMJI BOMBHATE AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1991

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  570            1991 SCR  (2) 685  1991 SCC  (3)  11        JT 1991 (2)   572  1991 SCALE  (1)907

ACT:      Civil  Service:  Primary School catering  to  education needs  of  children  of employees  in  ordinance  factories- Teachers paid honorarium not full salary out of school fees- Teachers  cannot  claim  pay  scale  of  Government   School Teachers-Central   Administrative  Tribunal  cannot   compel government  to assess needs of school and  create  necessary posts.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant i.e. the Central  Government  sanctioned primary school from classes I-V to cater to the  educational needs of children of persons employed in the ordance factory at  Ambazari.   The  employees  on their  own  in  the  same premises  opened  a secondary school with classes VI  to  X. The respondents are teachers in the Secondary School and are being  paid out of fees and other donations received by  the school, They approached the Central Administrative  Tribunal seeking  regularisation of their service and demanded  equal pay for equal work.      The   Tribunal   allowed  their  claim   with   certain directions  to the appellants including the Union  of  India i.e. directing the Central Government immediately to take up an  assessment  of the needs of the School to carry  on  its activities  at the present level and to create a  sufficient number  of  posts to be filled up on a regular  basis.   The Tribunal  further  directed the Central Government  to  take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance  with recruitment rules to be framed for the purpose.      Allowing  Civil appeal No. 233 of 1991 of the Union  of India,   and  setting  aside  the  order  of  the   Tribunal dismissing  Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1989 of the  respondents who  have  not  been  recruited  as  per  direction  of  the Tribunal, the Court.      HELD:   1.  There  is  no  evidence  in   record   that respondents  were appointed as teachers on honorarium by  or on  behalf of the Central Government.  There is no  evidence that  they  were initially appointed in primary  School  and later shifted to the Secondary School. It is undisputed                                                        686 that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary

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

School   nor  created  any  posts  thereto.   It  had   only sanctioned  the  Primary  School  and  the  posts  connected therewith  which are being occupied by  regularly  recruited teachers. [688A-B]      2.  The directions of the Tribunal are  indeed  amazing compelling the Central Government to sanction the  Secondary School.  The Central Government has taken a decision that it will  not involve itself in sanctioning or  running  classes beyond  the  Primary School level.  It is  a  policy  matter involving financial burden.  No court or the Tribunal  could compel  the  Government  to  change  its  policy   involving expenditure. [688D-E]      3.  The  respondents  are  not   paid  by  the  Central Government.  There is no relationship of master and  servant between  the  Central Government and the  respondents.   The respondents  are employed by the local officers so  how  the Central Government is accountable. [688G]      4. Even section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal  Act, 1985  confers  no jurisdiction, power or  authority  on  the Tribunal  to deal with the service matters of the  employees like the respondents.  the respondents cannot claim the pay- scale admissible to the Government school teachers and  much less  regularisation  of  their  services  by  the   Central Government. [688H-689A]      5.  The  directions  of  the  Tribunal  are  apparently unjustified  and  without  authority of  law  so  cannot  be sustained. [688F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 233  of 1991 etc.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  21.6.1988  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in O.A. No. 58 of 1988.      V.C. Mahajan, S.N. Terdal, A.K. Srivastava, C.V,  Subba Rao,  S.K. Gambhir, Dr. B. L. Wadhera, Sudarshan  Menon,  P. Parameshwaran and G.D. Gupta for the appearing parties.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      K.  JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. To cater to  the  educational needs  of  children  of persons  employed  in  the ordnances factory  at Ambazari the Central Government  has  sanctioned and is running a Primary School from classes I to V.  In the same premises, the employees                                                        687 of  the ordance factory, by  their own arrangement are  also having  a Secondary School with classes VI to X.  They  have appointed  the  respondents  as teachers  in  the  Secondary School.   They  are  paid honorarium and  not  full  salary. Their  honorarium is paid out of fees from the children  and other  donations received by the school.   the  respondents, however,  approached  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal seeking regularisation of their services and demanding equal pay  for equal work.  The Tribunal has allowed  their  claim with  certain  directions to the  appellants  including  the Union  of India.  The directions issued by the Tribunal  are as follows:          "(i)  The respondents will immediately take  up  an          assessment  of the needs of the school to carry  on          its  activities  at  their present  level  and  the          number  of  additional teachers required  for  this          purpose;   (ii)  After  assessing  the  number   of          teachers  needed, the respondents will  proceed  to          create a sufficient number of posts to be filled up

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

        on  a  regular basis; (iii)  After  completing  the          above exercise respondents will take steps to  fill          up  the  newly  created posts  in  accordance  with          recruitment  rules  to be framed for  the  purpose.          the applicants who have worked as teachers in  past          should  be first considered for the posts and  only          if they are found unsuitable should candidates from          sources like the Employment Exchange be considered;          (iv) Once the procedure outlined above is completed          all  persons  selected  should be  appointed  on  a          regular basis and on remuneration admissible to the          regular teachers of the primary school; (v) Similar          procedure  should  also be followed in  respect  of          posts  of peon giving Shri Tadas an opportunity  of          competing  for  regular appontment; (vi)  Till  the          exercise outlined above is completed which we  hope          will  be  done  before the  academic  year  1989-90          commences  the present procedure may  continue  and          such   of  the  applicants  as  are  selected   for          appointment will be subject to the same  conditions          of service as before."      The  Union  of India and the officers  of  the ordnance factory have challenged the validity of these  directions in Civil Appeal No. 233/1991. The respondents who have not  been recruited  as  per  the  directions  of  the  Tribunal  have preferred Civil Appeal No. 480/1989.      We  have considered the submissions of counsel on  both sides in the light of the material on record.  At the outset we may point out that                                                        688 there is no evidence that the respondents were appointed  as teachers  on  honorarium  by or on  behalf  of  the  Central Government.  There is also no evidence that the  respondents were  initially appointed in the Primary School  and  latter they  were  shifted  to the  Secondary  School.   The  fact, however,  remains  that  when  the  respondents  moved   the Tribunal for relies they were only teaching in the Secondary School.   It is undisputed that the Central  Government  has not  sanctioned the Secondary School nor created  any  posts thereto.   the  Central Government has only  sanctioned  the Primary  School  and the posts connected  therewith.   Those posts are being occupied by regularly recruited teachers.      The   Tribunal,  however,  has  directed  the   Central Government  immediately  to take up an  assessment   of  the needs  of  the  School to carry on  its  activities  at  the present level and to create a sufficient number of posts  to be  filled up on a regular basis.  The Tribunal has  further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance with the recruitment rules to  be framed for the purpose.  These directions are  indeed amazing.  It  has compelled the Government to  sanction  the Secondary  School, create adequate number of posts and  fill up  the  posts after framing the recruitment rules  for  the purpose.   There is no law requiring the Central  Government to  sanction the Secondary School.  the  Central  Government has  taken  a decision that it will not  involve  itself  in sanctioning  or  running classes beyond the  Primary  School level.   It is a policy matter involving  financial  burden. No  Court  or the Tribunal could compel  the  Government  to change  its  policy  involving  expenditure.   The  Tribunal therefore,  could  not  have, could  not  have,  issued  the directions  as  it did to compel the Central  Government  to assess  the  needs of the school and  create  the  necessary posts without support of law.      Secondly,  the respondents are not paid by the  Central

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

Government.  They are not holding any appointment under  the Central Government.  There is no relationship of master  and servant between the Central Government and the  respondents. The  respondents  are employed in the  Secondary  School  by local  arrangement  made  by the officers  of  the  ordnance factory.   It is not proved that how the Central  Government is  accountable  to  such  arrangement  made  by  the  local officers.      Thirdly,  Section  14 of the  Administrative  Tribunals Act,  1985 confers no jurisdiction, power and  authority  on the  Tribunal  to  deal  with the  service  matters  of  the employees like the respondents.                                                        689      In any view of the matter, the respondents cannot claim the  pay-scale admissible to the Government school  teachers much  less regularisation of their services by  the  Central Government.    The   directions  issued  by   the   Tribunal therefore,   cannot  be  sustained.   They  are   apparently injustified and without authority of law.      In  the result we allow the Civil Appeal No.  233/1991, and  set aside the order of the Tribunal.  the Civil  Appeal No.  480/1989  is dismissed.  In the  circumstances  of  the case, however, we make no order as to costs. S.B.                                CA No. 233/91 allowed                              and CA No. 480/89 dismissed.                                                        690