1. Engagement of personnel under a specific government scheme for primary education promotion — claim for regularisation and pay parity with regular teachers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 841
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : Sujata V.Manohar
State Of Orissa
Versus
Dipti Paul
Case No. : 1499 of 1998, 1500 , 1512 , 1514 , 1538 of 1998
Date of Decision : 8/11/99
The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is inapplicable to employees engaged under a specific government scheme on fixed remuneration when their duties, recruitment methods, and terms of employment differ fundamentally from those in the regular cadre.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Equal pay for equal work - Persons engaged under a specific government scheme on fixed remuneration for specific duties - Claim for parity with regular cadre employees - Where duties assigned to scheme employees (motivating parents and assisting teachers) are different from those of regular teachers, and the method of appointment is distinct, such employees cannot claim parity in pay or regularisation from the date of initial appointment (Paras 5, 7).
(B) Regularisation - Persons employed under a limited scheme with specific objectives and resources cannot claim regularisation or benefits beyond what the scheme intended, as doing so would frustrate the object of the scheme (Para 6).
(C) Equal pay for equal work - Principle not applicable where there are qualitative differences between institutions, nature of work, source of recruitment, and mode of payment (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
A state government introduced a scheme to engage trained matriculates as assistants on a fixed remuneration to promote universal primary education. The scheme provided for a fixed salary and the possibility of priority appointment as regular teachers after four years of satisfactory service. The scheme was later abolished, and eligible persons were absorbed into regular vacancies. The employees claimed regularisation and the same salary as regular teachers from their initial date of appointment. The administrative tribunal granted this relief, which was challenged by the state.
Findings of Court:
The duties of the scheme employees were fundamentally different from those of regular teachers. The scheme was self-contained with a specific purpose and fixed remuneration. Granting regular pay from the inception would frustrate the entire purpose of the scheme.
Issues: Whether employees engaged under a specific scheme for promoting universal primary education on fixed remuneration are entitled to the same pay as regular primary school teachers from the date of their initial appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable when the nature of work, method of recruitment, and terms of engagement differ significantly between the scheme employees and the regular cadre.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for regularisation as primary school teachers and entitlement to equal pay from the date of initial appointment under the scheme. (Para 4 )
3. Personnel under a specific scheme with distinct duties and appointment methods cannot claim parity with regular cadre employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. The principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable where duties, appointment methods, and the nature of the employment scheme differ. (Para 5 , 8 )
5. Appeals allowed and the order of the Administrative Tribunal set aside. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can employees appointed under a specific government scheme claim regularisation based on tenure?
No. Persons employed under a specific scheme with limited objects and resources cannot claim regularisation of service simply by completing a certain period of work, as doing so would frustrate the purpose of the scheme. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. When does the principle of equal pay for equal work not apply to scheme-based employees?
The principle is inapplicable when the nature of work, duties, method of appointment, source of recruitment, and mode of payment are fundamentally different from those of the regular cadre employees. (Para 5 , 8 )
8. Does the appointment of personnel to assist regular teachers entitle them to the same pay scale as the regular cadre?
No. If the primary duties are distinct—such as motivating enrollment versus regular teaching—and the appointment is under a self-contained scheme with fixed remuneration, parity in pay cannot be claimed. (Para 5 , 7 )
(1) THE Government of Orissa by Resolution No. 33891 dated 3-8-1989 introduced a scheme under which trained matriculates were to be engaged as Sikhyakarmis in primary and upgraded upper primary schools on a fixed remuneration. The duties of Sikhyakarmis were to promote universal primary education by motivating parents of children below the age of 14 years to get their children enrolled in primary schools and to motivate them to attend the classes regularly. They were also to assist the regular teachers in primary and upper primary schools in the teaching work. Under this Scheme, Sikhyakarmis were appointed on a fixed salary of Rs. 400 per month. The resolution further provided that if they worked for three years, their salary could be fixed at Rs. 600 per month. At the end of four years, if their work was satisfactory, they would be considered for appointment as Primary School Teachers on a priority basis.
(2) THIS Scheme was in operation for approximately seven years, when on account of various difficulties experienced by the Government in the working of the Scheme and the complaints received, the Government decided to abolish Sikhyakarmis. Accordingly, by resolution dated 3-1-1996, the Government decided that the Scheme of engagement of Sikhyakarmis would be abolished forthwith and no further engagement of Sikhyakarmis would be made. Henceforth, vacancies in the rank of Primary School Teachers would be filled through direct recruitment.
(3) BY a further Resolution No. 7379 of 12-3-1996, it was resolved that those Sikhyakarmis who had not been appointed as Primary School Teachers till then, may be appointed as such in vacancies arising in the sanctioned strength of Primary School Teachers on conditions which were set out in the resolution. By another resolution of the same date, it was stated that consequent upon abolition of the Scheme of engagement of Sikhyakarmis, it had been decided that Sikhyakarmis who were eligible in terms of the decision of the Government, should be absorbed as Primary School Teachers against vacancies available, and further that the vacancies in the post of Primary School Teachers which remained unfilled after such adjustment would be filled up through direct recruitment.
(4) AS a result, the Scheme for appointment of Sikhyakarmis has been discontinued from 3-1-1996. The Sikhyakarmis, however, moved the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, claiming "regularisation" as Primary School Teachers and claiming the same salary as Primary School Teachers, from the date on which they were initially appointed as Sikhyakarmis. The relief of granting the same pay as Primary School Teachers from the date of their initial appointment as Sikhyakarmis has been granted by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Hence, the State has come in appeal before us.
(5) FROM the Scheme promulgated under the government resolution of 3-8-1989, it is clear that the duties which were assigned to Sikhyakarmis were different from the duties assigned to the regularly appointed Primary School Teachers. Their main duties were to motivate the parents of children below 14 years to enrol their children in primary schools, and also to motivate regular attendance of such children in the primary schools. They were, in addition, assigned the duty of assisting the regularly appointed Primary School Teachers. Under the Scheme, they were also given a specific fixed remuneration. Clearly there was no intention that they should discharge the same duties as Primary School Teachers; nor was there any intention to appoint them in the regular cadre of Primary School Teachers or to allow them to function as such regular Primary School Teachers. The method of appointment was also different from the method of appointment to the post of a regular Primary School Teacher. Those who were appointed under such a Scheme therefore cannot claim parity with Primary School Teachers appointed under the prescribed procedur
