Union of India vs K.C. Malviya

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The respondent in this Special Appeal was appointed as a Craft Instructor in Sainik School, Chittorgarh on 20.11.1992. As per the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, his pay was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2050 which was revised consequent to the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000.

The petitioner had made representations for revision of his pay in the scale equivalent to Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Initially he was required to wait for recommendations to be made by the 5th Pay Commission. When he did not get any response, he approached the Principal of the School, who made recommendations in the following terms:-

"1. A representation received from Sh. KC Malviya, Craft Instructor of this school regarding the anomaly in his pay scale post implementation of Vth Pay Commission is forwarded herewith.

The Principal has the following comments to offer:-

(a) The Vth Pay Commission recommendation in respect of Sainik Schools Staff have been implemented vide BOG Letter No. 12(4)/97/D (SSC) dated 04 Mar. 1998, in which it is envisaged to grant pay scales the academic staff as sanctioned by the K.V. Sangathan.

(b) However, there exists an anomaly between the pay scale of the Craft Instructor in this school (4500-7000) and his counter-part in the KV School (5500-9000), whereas the qualification and the nature of the job profound by the both is same. Copy of K.V. Sangathan letter No. F.12-17-97-KVS (Admn. I) dated 06 Feb 1998 is attached at appendix ''A''.

(c) The individual had earlier been intimated by the Sainik Schools Society vide BOG letter No. PC-10(3)/87/D(SSC) dated 20 Oct. 95 that his case would be decided after the Vth Pay Commission.

In view of foregoing, it is submitted that the representation of Sh. KC Malviya regarding the settlement of the anomaly in his pay scale may be favourably considered and settled at an early date."

Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that indisputably the petitioner was appointed as a Craft Instructor in the respondent school in the scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560, which was equivalent to Primary Teacher Scale. The respondent school, where the petitioner was appointed, has classes starting from VIth to XIIth and, therefore, through-out his service, after his appointment the petitioner was imparting training in Craft to the students of Class VIth to XIIth standard. He was never made to discharge the duties assigned to a primary school teacher as there was no primary section in the School.

It was held by learned Single Judge that the respondents have avoided to answer the basic question as to when the petitioner was appointed in a school where the craft training is to be imparted, how could there be an appointment of the teacher of the level of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). It was held that since the petitioner was discharging the same duties, which were being discharged by the similarly situated craft teachers, with different designations in various Senior Secondary Schools, the petitioner could not be denied parity with them in the pay scale. The writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale admissible to trained graduate teachers (TGTs) in the respondent school in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000, revised from time to time.

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India states that the qualifications possessed by the respondent, for Craft Teacher/Instructor were lesser than the qualifications prescribed in other sainik schools and Kendriya Vidhyalayas. The respondent applied in pursuance to advertisement and had accepted the appointment in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2050, which was revised by the 5th Pay Commission in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000. He had no right thereafter to claim a higher pay-scale after having accepted the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2050 at the time of his appointment. It is submitted that in any event, learned Single Judge could not have directed to give the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to the respondent. At best, learned Single Judge could have directed the respondent to consider the grant of the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000.

We do not find that there is any basis of the argument that the respondent was not possessing the same qualifications which were required under the Rules and were possessed by the Craft Teachers/Instructors on similar posts in other schools. The petitioner''s qualifications, as compared to the qualifications in the other schools, have not been given in the reply or in the grounds of appeal nor any such point was raised before learned Single Judge.

We may observe here that the respondent had been making representations from the beginning, which were accepted by the Principal of School. He also made recommendations in favour of the respondent to remove the anomaly between the pay-scale of the Craft Instructor in the Sainik School and the counter parts in Kendriya Vidhyalaya.

It is not denied that there was and is no primary section in the Sainik School at Chittorgarh and that the respondent has been through out teaching as a Craft Instructor to Class VIth to XIIth in the pay-scale for which the pay-scales were revised by the 5th Pay Commission and were brought in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000.

Learned Single Judge has granted relief on the ground of parity with the Craft Instructors in the other Schools. The discrimination had violated the petitioner''s right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has also considered that the respondent is discharging the same functions and duties as other craft instructors in the schools run by the Central Government, namely, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan and Tibetan Schools.

We do not find any merit in the Special Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.