Sachin Madhukarrao Awaghad & Ors. vs The Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Ors.

“16.

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and with their assistance have gone through the record of the matter. As can be seen from the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016, and more particularly Clause 3 thereof, it contemplates that only 1/3rd teachers out of the teachers teaching Class 6 to 8 would be entitled for graduate pay scale. It also provides for a modality if the number of teachers teaching the said classes is more than three. No reason whatsoever is coming forward nor can be seen from the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 for exclusion of the teachers like petitioners. As can be seen from the Preamble of the said Government Resolution, the same is issued for granting benefit of graduate pay scale to teachers teaching Class 6 to 8. It also provides that the subjects of Mathematics and English are supposed to be the difficult subjects and therefore for shortage of said teachers, it was found and observed that the teachers who were not graduate were appointed to teach such subjects to Class 6 and 8. However, while doing so, it was ignored that in which faculty the said person is graduate. It was in these circumstances that persons who have graduated with History, Geography or language were made to teach Mathematics and Science. It was therefore found that the merit of the students was suffering due to this fact. Thus, there is no reason coming forward for granting benefit to only 1/3rd teachers 17. We have gone through the circular impugned, as also other circulars referred to us by supra. As has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the parent statute i.e. the RTE does not contemplate any such discrimination or muchless a ratio of 1:3 which has been sought to be created by the Clause 3 of the Government Resolution. As can be seen from the record and which is undisputed by the parties, that the nature of work/duty which is being performed by the said persons who have been granted graduate pay scale and the present persons like petitioners who have been deprived of the benefit thereof is one and the same. There is no rationale for exclusion of other teachers like petitioners who are performing the same nature of duties. 18.

The Counsel for petitioners has rightly relied upon judgment of this Court in 2010(1) All MR 170 (Sahebrao Karbhari Gunjal and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) in which this Court in paragraph No. 13 recorded as under.

“13.

"Equality" has been guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equals have to be treated equally and un-equals ought not to be treated equally. However, reasonable classification is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification must be founded on the basis of an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.”

“Furthermore in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1982) 1 SCC 618 in paragraph No. 8 the Hon’ble Apex Court has recorded as under :

“8.

It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. ‘Equal pay for equal work for both men and women’ means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean some-thing. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must at least mean 'equal pay for equal work'. "The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the Inter-national Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.”

“19.

This in our view, is a hostile discrimination without any reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved that is maintaining the merit and academic standard of the students. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the Clause 3 of the said resolution dated 13.10.2016 is unconstitutional and ultra-vires the parent statute i.e. RTE Act. 20……”

i)

Quash and set aside the order dated 18.07.2024, passed by Divisional Commissioner Amravati Division Amravati in Appeal Case No. 13/ZPS/Amravati/2023;

ii) Quash and set aside the decision/order taken by the respondent No. 2 Chief Executive Officer on 30.09.2020, by which the respondent No. 2 Chief Executive Officer has given benefits of the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 to only 51 subject teacher science (Primary Marathi Medium) and illegally counted the strength of only 180 subject teacher science eligible while total working teachers are 468 for the graduate pay-scale as the same is illegal, improper and contravene the guideline No. 3 prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016;

iii) Allow the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner Amravati thereby grant and pay scale to the 1/3rd subject teacher of total working 468 and accordingly considering the list dated 31.03.2020 grant pay scale to the 156 Science Graduate Teacher from the said list considering the petitioners are Science Graduate Teachers and entitled for subject teacher pay scale on the basis of the list dated 30.03.2020;

iv) The respondent No. 2 Chief Executive Officer to consider the total strength of 468 subject teacher science Marathi medium for implementation of condition No. 3 incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 and also direct to count the 1/3rd of 468 subject teacher science Marathi Medium eligible for the graduate pay-scale in compliance of Government Resolution dated 13.10.2016 which includes all the appellants;