- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Haryana And Others v. Champa Devi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The State of Haryana appealed against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that extended to teachers of privately managed, recognised aided schools the benefits contained in four Government circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992, 7-1-1994 and 8-2-1994. According to the State, the first three circulars provided incentives to Government employees and the fourth granted a higher pay scale to Government school teachers. In the High Court proceedings the State filed no counter-affidavit, and its counsel conceded that the circular dated 8-2-1994 concerned teachers’ pay scales. Relying on earlier Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the private-school teachers were entitled to the benefits of all four circulars. The State of Haryana obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether teachers of privately managed recognised aided schools in Haryana are entitled to the financial benefits provided under Government circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992, 7-1-1994 and 8-2-1994, which were originally meant for Government employees/teachers.
- Whether the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work” and the requirement of parity between Government and aided-school teachers extend beyond pay scales and dearness allowance to include other incentives granted solely to Government employees.
Arguments of the Parties
State of Haryana (Appellant)
- The Supreme Court precedents relied on by the High Court establish parity only in pay scales and dearness allowance; they do not mandate extension of other incentives to private-school teachers.
- The four impugned circulars are “incentives” designed to alleviate stagnation and therefore cannot be claimed by non-Government employees under the parity principle.
- A subsequent set of rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution allegedly excludes private-school teachers from the benefits even of the 8-2-1994 circular.
Respondent Teachers
- Under earlier Supreme Court judgments, teachers of aided schools are entitled to the same pay scales and allowances as Government-school teachers.
- The circulars, particularly that of 8-2-1994, operate as grant of a higher pay scale rather than mere incentives; hence the teachers of aided schools are entitled to them.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 571 | Teachers of aided schools must receive the same pay scale and dearness allowance as teachers of Government schools. | Used to confirm that parity in pay and DA applies to aided-school teachers, supporting extension of circular dated 8-2-1994. |
| Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana, 1990 Supp SCC 306 / 1991 15 ATC 873 | Reaffirmed the parity principle between Government and aided-school teachers. | Relied on by the High Court and accepted by the Supreme Court regarding pay-scale parity. |
| State of Haryana v. Rajpal Sharma, (1996) 5 SCC 273 | Restated that aided-school teachers are entitled to the same pay scales and DA as their Government counterparts. | Supported the Court’s view that the 8-2-1994 circular, being a pay-scale revision, must apply to aided-school teachers. |
| State of Punjab v. Om Parkash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 | Defined the limits of “parity in employment”; incentives to Government employees do not automatically extend to employees of private institutions. | Formed the basis for denying aided-school teachers the benefits of the three incentive-based circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992 and 7-1-1994. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court first addressed the State’s concession before the High Court that the 8-2-1994 circular concerned pay scales. After examining the text of that circular, the Supreme Court held that it indeed related to a higher scale of pay, rendering the concession “well founded.” Consequently, the High Court’s extension of that circular to aided-school teachers was upheld.
2. By reference to Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh (1988, 1990 Supp) and Rajpal Sharma (1996) the Court reiterated that aided-school teachers are entitled, as a matter of right, to the same pay scales and dearness allowance enjoyed by teachers in Government schools.
3. Turning to the other three circulars (14-5-1991, 7-8-1992, 7-1-1994), the Court invoked State of Punjab v. Om Parkash Kaushal to clarify that the constitutional parity principle does not cover every incentive or benefit available to Government employees. Because those circulars were characterised as incentives addressing stagnation or interim relief—not pay scales or DA—the High Court erred in extending them to private-school teachers.
4. The Court took note of rules framed under Article 309 that were belatedly produced by the State, but expressly declined to rule on their effect, leaving the parties to pursue appropriate remedies under those rules.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED IN PART: The Supreme Court sustained the High Court’s decision insofar as it granted aided-school teachers the benefits of the circular dated 8-2-1994 (higher pay scale), but set aside the extension of benefits under the circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992 and 7-1-1994.
Implications: The decision re-affirms that parity between Government and aided-school teachers is limited to pay scales and dearness allowance. Incentive-based benefits available only to Government employees do not automatically flow to private-school teachers. No broader precedent was set regarding the subsequent Article 309 rules, which remain open for further challenge.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the State of Haryana are directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The dispute centres around the question whether the teachers of privately managed recognised aided schools would be entitled to the benefits which the Government had conferred by issuing circulars at different point of time. In this batch of cases we are concerned with four such circulars i.e circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992, 7-1-1994 and 8-2-1994. Out of these four circulars, the first two circulars appear to have been issued as an incentive to the employees of the Government of Haryana State and the third circular is an interim relief granted to them while the matter of revision of pay was under consideration before the Pay Commission. The fourth circular dated 8-2-1994 is a higher scale of pay to the teachers of the government schools in Haryana on certain contingencies. When the teachers of the privately managed schools filed the writ petition before the High Court, the State did not file any counter-affidavit. In course of arguments before the High Court the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana conceded that the circular dated 8-2-1994, which had been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, is a matter relating to the scale of pay of the teachers. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 571, State of Haryana v. Rajpal Sharma (1996) 5 SCC 273 as well as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana 1990 Supp SCC 306, (1991) 15 ATC 873 came to the conclusion that the teachers of the privately managed schools would be entitled to all the benefits emanating from the aforesaid four circulars which were undoubtedly meant only for the government servants in the State of Haryana.
3. Assailing the aforesaid judgment in these appeals, Mr Mahendra Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, vehemently contends that the decisions of this Court on which the High Court has relied upon, clearly envisage that there should be a parity in the scale of pay and the dearness allowance, but other incentives which are granted to the government servants or teachers of government schools, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the form of parity by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. According to Mr Anand, all the aforesaid four circulars were in the nature of incentives to the government servants to ameliorate the grievances of stagnation at a particular stage and, therefore, the High Court was in error in granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. Mr Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the decisions of this Court in the cases referred to above, the conclusion is irresistible that the teachers of private schools would be entitled to the same scale of pay and other allowances. According to Mr Kalra, the aforesaid circulars, in fact, are in the nature of a higher scale of pay and not as an incentive, as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State.
4. Be it stated that even though no counter-affidavit had been filed by the State in the High Court and a concession was made by the counsel appearing for the State, stating that the circular dated 8-2-1994 is in relation to the scale of pay of a teacher, in the special leave petitions filed in this Court by the State, no ground had been taken that no such concession had been made. Though in course of hearing of these appeals, Mr Anand vehemently contended that the concession on a question of law should not bind the State in assailing that concession in this Court and further the circular dated 8-2-1994 is in the nature of a stagnation/promotion policy intended for those employees who have not been able to get higher promotion notwithstanding having rendered certain years of service and, therefore, the benefits flowing from such circular cannot be conferred on the teachers of privately managed schools, but on examining the circular dated 8-2-1994, which was annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, we have no manner of doubt that it relates to a higher scale of pay and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the concession of the State counsel before the High Court was well founded and we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court proceeding on the basis of the aforesaid concession. This Court in Haryana Adhyapak Sangh case (supra) has unequivocally indicated that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same scale and dearness allowance as teachers of government schools. In Rajpal Sharma case (1996) 5 SCC 273 the same principle has been reiterated. That being the position, the conclusion of the High Court that the teachers of the private schools would be entitled to the benefits of the circular dated 8-2-1994 is unassailable and we, therefore, sustain that part of the conclusion of the impugned judgment.
5. Coming, however, to the question as to whether the benefits given to the government employees under the circulars dated 14-5-1991, 7-8-1992 and 7-1-1994 which were annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in granting the benefits of those circulars to the employees of private schools. In State of Punjab v. Om Parkash Kaushal (1996) 5 SCC 325 a Bench of this Court examined the question as to what is the true meaning of “parity in employment” and ultimately came to the conclusion that all incentives granted to the employees of the Government cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the employee under private management, as that would not be within the expression “parity in employment”. The Court unequivocally said that the scale of pay and the dearness allowance to a government servant or the teacher of a government school can be claimed as a matter of right by the teachers of a private school and not other incentives which the Government might be intending to confer on its own employees. This being the position and on examining the aforesaid three circulars which were annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6 in the writ petition filed before the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed error in granting the benefit of those circulars also to the teachers of the privately managed schools. We, therefore, set aside that part of the conclusion in the impugned judgment.
6. In course of arguments, Mr Anand, appearing for the State of Haryana, placed before us the subsequent rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in support of his contention that even the so-called pay scale granted by the circular dated 8-2-1994 would not be available to the teachers of the private schools. We, however, do not express any opinion as to the effect of the aforesaid rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and parties should work out remedies available to them under the said rules.
7. In the aforesaid premises, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert