Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Harish Kumar & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Anu Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. 9 petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents for grant of the same scales and allowances as admissible to their counterparts working in Government Schools and for extending the benefit of grant-in-aid Scheme to Senior Secondary Department of the School upon transfer of 10+1 and 10+2 classes from college to the school with the approval of the Education Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite having directed the school and colleges to transfer the 10+1 and 10+2 classes, the Education Department arbitrarily and illegally had imposed condition that the Management would not claim grant-in-aid in respect of teachers/lecturers working in the Senior Secondary School Department. As per the petitioners, similar type of condition has Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -2- already been struck down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration & others Versus Mrs. Rajni Vali & others, JT 2000 (1) SC 159, by upholding the view expressed by this Court in the same case which is reported as Rajni Vali versus Chandigarh Administration, 1995(8) SLR 114. The petitioners, accordingly, pray for direction to the State Government to grant and maintain parity of pay-scale of the teachers/employees working in the privately managed recognized schools and with their counterparts working in the Government Schools and to apportion the liability in the ratio at which the same is shared on the ground that imparting education to the students studying in the schools including the Primary and Senior Secondary Schools is the sovereign function of the State and the Private Management only is supplementing the efforts of State in discharging this constitutional obligation. Out of the 9 petitioners, only 2 i.e. Promila Sharma (petitioner No.2) and Ramesh Kumar (petitioner No.7) are left to press this petition. The remaining respondents have either been deleted or no more interested in pursing or prosecuting this petition as they have been adjusted either in some other schools or have been appointed in the Government Schools. The main thrust of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners of course continues to be the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajni Vali's case (supra). As per the counsel for the petitioners, the case is squarely covered by the said decision and as such, similar direction need to be issued in the present case as well. Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -3- I have perused the judgment in the case of Rajni Vali's case (supra). This was a case, where Dev Samaj Girls Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh, which is private educational institution, but duly recognized and was in receipt of grant-in-aid, was required to start 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the school and had upgraded the school for Senior Secondary level. The permission had been granted by the District Education Officer, Chandigarh. This was with the condition that no grant-in-aid will be provided to any additional staff. The classes were started on the recommendation of Director Public Instructions (DPI) and the Institution was granted affiliation by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. When the request of the teachers for grant of salary at par with their counterparts (privately managed recognized school) was not heeded to by the Chandigarh Administration, they filed a writ petition before this Court seeking inter alia writ of mandamus directing the respondents i.e. the Chandigarh Administration and its Financial Secretary etc. to pay the same pay and allowances to the petitioners, which were being paid to their counterparts working in the privately managed recognized aided schools in the Chandigarh. The prayer further was that the expenses so incurred should be apportioned by the Chandigarh Administration with the management of the school in the ratio of 95% and 5% as being done by the State Government and the management. This Court allowed the writ petition on 1.12.1995 and this judgment is reported as Rajni Vali versus Chandigarh Administration, 1995(8) SLR 114. Thereafter, Chandigarh Administration filed a Special Leave Petition against this judgment, Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -4- which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment noticed above. While dismissing the SLP, the Court has clearly noticed the accepted position that imparting primary and secondary education to the students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. This has been noted to be a Constitutional mandate that State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. It is observed that the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations in line with this principle. The State Government, thus, is providing grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running up the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching will not suffer on account of paucity of funds. After noticing of this principle and by referring to this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that position is manifest that there is no justification for denying claim of the respondents(teachers) for parity of pay scale and to accept the contention of the Union Territory will amount to confirming the discriminatory treatment against the teachers. The view held by this Court was found right and justified and was upheld. Even the contention raised on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration that it will be difficult to bear the additional financial burden if the claim was accepted on the ground that similar contention raised had earlier been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rather it is observed as under:- “The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the Authorities running the Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -5- Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. We do not deem it necessary to consider this question in further detail. The contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected. It is, however, clarified that the proportion in which the additional burden will be shared by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the school will be in accordance with the Grant-in- aid Scheme applicable to the school from time to time. The judgment of the High Court that the sharing of the financial burden will be in the ratio of 95 % to 5% is modified accordingly.” Thus, the State as well as the Management of the school was held eligible to share funds. To be fair to the learned State counsel, she has made efforts to get out the rigors laid down in the Rajni Vali's case (supra). She has made reference to the law laid down in Maria Grace Rural Middle School, Venkatarayapuram Versus Govenrment of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2007 Madras 52. In this case, it is observed that grant-in-aid is neither fundamental right nor a statutory right of the educational institution and that the paying capacity can be relevant consideration while fixing cut off date . These observations have been made clearly in different context. This was a petition filed by a school asking for grant-in-aid and accordingly, it was held that it is not the fundamental right of the petitioner to seek grant-in-aid. The issue in the present case is arising in clearly different context. Here what is required to be seen whether the teachers, who are working in a school being duly authorized by the Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -6- Administration and this is so as the classes were transferred to the School, could be given pay and allowances different than what are being received by their counterparts in other schools. Concededly such teachers were working equal to other teachers working in privately managed recognized aided schools. To deny wages ignoring the principle of equal pay for equal work to the teachers, would amount to great injustice. Teachers, as already noticed are builders of a society and a Nation. The responsibility of the State has already been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The private institutions are substituting the efforts of the Government as the Government has not been able to provide education to all deserving citizens at large. In this background, the State cannot be expected to shirk its responsibility. State counsel, thereafter, would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis and their appointment was not regular and as such they cannot make a claim for equal wages. In response, counsel for the petitioners would point out that petitioner No.2 initially was appointed on contract basis and subsequently, she was appointed pursuant to advertisement issued and it would be too late now to raise this defence. This can also not be ground to deny equal pay for equal work to the said petitioner. As far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, he is working since 1.1.1996 regularly and has continued to perform his duties. At this stage denying him equal pay for equal work on the ground that he was appointed on contract basis would amount to injustice. The State counsel has then drawn my attention to Civil Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2000 -7- an order passed in CWP No.16019 of 1998 (Sanjiv Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 7.8.2009, where the writ petition containing the similar issue was disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the claim of the petitioners while keeping in mind the decision in the case of Rajni Vali (supra). In fact the plea therein was also that the petitioners were working on contract basis and getting fixed salaries against unaided posts. The said petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the aforesaid issue after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In my considered opinion, the issue is well settled by decision of this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is hardly any scope left to be considered by the respondents. Perhaps while deciding CWP No. 16019 of 1998, this Court did not have before it the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The position therefore, as on date would be that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of prayer made in the writ petition in terms of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Direction hereby is issued to the respondents to pay the same salary to he petitioners as being paid to the privately managed Government Aided School in the State. The expenses so incurred would be apportioned between the State and the School Management in accordance with Grant-in-Aid Scheme applicable to the school from time to time. March 1, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE