- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Central Government sanctioned and operates a Primary School (classes I–V) for children of employees of the Ambazari ordnance factory. In the same premises, factory employees independently run a Secondary School (classes VI–X). Teachers in this Secondary School—the respondents—were engaged by the employees’ committee, paid only an honorarium derived from student fees and donations.
Seeking regularisation of their services and “equal pay for equal work,” the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered the Union of India to assess staffing needs, create and fill regular posts, and extend primary-school pay scales to the respondents.
The Union of India and ordnance-factory officers appealed against these directions in Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1991. The respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1989 because they had not been recruited pursuant to the Tribunal’s order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal possessed jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to entertain the respondents’ claims.
- Whether the Tribunal could compel the Central Government to sanction a Secondary School, create teaching posts, and regularise the respondents’ services.
- Whether the respondents, who were engaged locally and paid honoraria, were entitled to the salary scales of government teachers under the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.”
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Lack of governmental appointment: The Court found no evidence that the respondents were appointed by or on behalf of the Central Government, nor that they were ever part of the government-sanctioned Primary School. Consequently, no master-servant relationship existed between the Union of India and the respondents.
2. Absence of statutory obligation to run a Secondary School: The Central Government had sanctioned only the Primary School. Its policy decision not to fund education beyond class V involved financial considerations. The Court held that neither a court nor the Tribunal could compel a change in such policy absent statutory authority.
3. Tribunal’s ultra vires directions: By ordering the Government to assess needs, create posts, frame recruitment rules, and appoint teachers, the Tribunal effectively mandated the establishment of a new institution. The Court characterized these directives as “amazing” and beyond the Tribunal’s powers.
4. Jurisdictional bar under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: The service matters of employees not holding civil posts under the Union are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The respondents, paid through local arrangements, did not fall within this statutory remit.
5. Claim for equal pay and regularisation untenable: Given the absence of a legal employer-employee relationship with the Government, the respondents could not invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work or seek regularisation by the Central Government.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1991 is allowed; the Central Administrative Tribunal's order is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1989 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision relieves the Union of India of any obligation to create or fund Secondary School posts at the Ambazari ordnance factory. The respondents remain outside the cadre of government teachers, receiving no entitlement to regularisation or government pay scales. The judgment affirms the limits of tribunals and courts in directing policy-laden governmental expenditure, but sets no new precedent through cited authority.
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.— To cater to the educational needs of children of persons employed in the ordnance 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 of the ordnance 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 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 appointment; (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.”
2. The Union of India and the officers of the ordnance factory have challenged the validity of these directions in Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1991. The respondents who have not been recruited as per the directions of the Tribunal have preferred Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1989.
3. 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 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 later they were shifted to the Secondary School. The fact, however, remains that when the respondents moved the Tribunal for reliefs 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.
4. 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 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.
5. Secondly, the respondents are not paid by the Central 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 unjustified and without authority of law.
8. In the result we allow the Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1991, and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1989 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the cases, however, we make no order as to costs.
Alert