SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 756

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker & Tarun Chatterjee
State of Bihar & OrsPETITIONER
versus
Bihar State +2 Lecturers Associations & OrsRESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 2519 of 2007
Decided on 15/05/2007

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction between trained and untrained lecturers is legal, valid, rational, and reasonable, and different pay scales for them do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

PAY SCALES - Distinction between trained and untrained lecturers - Article 14 of the Constitution - 1952 SCR 284, (2006) 8 SCC 399, (2007) 1 SCC 732, (1968) 1 SCR 407 : AIR 1968 SC 349, (1974) 1 SCC 19, (1989) 1 SCC 392, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 189, (2000) 7 SCC 618, (1994) 2 SCC 521, (2006) 9 SCC 82 - The court upheld the classification between trained and untrained lecturers as rational and reasonable, and held that different pay scales for them did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the difference in pay scales between trained and untrained lecturers. The State Government had fixed different pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers, which was challenged by the Association of Untrained Lecturers. The single Judge upheld the classification and dismissed the petition, but the Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed the State Authorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench was not right in holding that the distinction between trained and untrained lecturers is arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise objectionable. The court upheld the classification as legal, valid, rational, and reasonable, and held that different pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the court did not interfere with the final direction issued by the Division Bench due to certain circumstances.

Issues: The main issue was whether the difference in pay scales between trained and untrained lecturers violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is a clear distinction between trained and untrained lecturers, and such a distinction is legal, valid, rational, and reasonable. The classification is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object of imparting education to students. The court also considered the recommendations of the Fitment Committee and the withdrawal of the order for sending untrained lecturers for training by the State Government.

Final Decision: The court did not set aside the order of the Division Bench and did not interfere with the final direction issued, despite upholding the classification between trained and untrained lecturers and the legality of different pay scales for them.

JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2519 OF 2007

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1397 of 2005)

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated March 22, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 2004. By the said order, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Association of Untrained Lecturers and set aside the order dated January 28, 2004 passed by a single Judge of that Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7224 of 1999.

3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be noted:

4. Advertisement No. 1 of 1987 was issued by the appellants, inviting applications for appointment of +2 Lecturers in Secondary Schools in the pay scales of Rs.940-1660 in Government Schools as well as in Nationalized Schools. The qualification prescribed in the Advertisement for the post was Post-Graduate Degree in II Class. There was no requirement of having training for appointment to the said post. In 1989, Members of the

Respondent-Association who had Post-Graduate Degree in II Class but who were untrained, were selected and appointed as Lecturers in Nationalized Schools in the pay scales of Rs.940-1660. After Vth Pay Commission, pay scales of Rs.940-1660 were revised to Rs.1640-2900 with effect from January 1, 1996. It appears that initially, there was difference in pay scales of +2 Lecturers serving in Government Schools and serving in Nationalized Schools other than Government Schools. After a decision of the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2445 of 1994, all +2 Lecturers were granted uniform pay scales irrespective of their posting. The controversy raised in the present matter relates to difference of pay scales between lecturers who are trained and lecturers who are untrained. A Fitment Committee was appointed by the Government to consider the pay scales of trained and untrained lecturers. The Fitment Committee considered the question and recommended different pay scales for trained and untrained lecturers. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Fitment Committee and fixed pay scales of Rs.5000-8000 for untrained lecturers and Rs.6500-10500 for trained lecturers. Government Resolution was passed on February 8, 1999 and a notification was issued on June 10, 1999.

5. There was resentment amongst the employees against fixation of two different pay scales of +2 Lecturers on the basis of training. A writ petition was, therefore, filed by the Association challenging classification made on the basis of training. A Fitment Appellate Committee was, therefore, constituted by the State Government presided over by a sitting Judge of the High Court by an order dated January 15, 2000 to go into the anomalies in pay scales of trained lecturers and untrained lecturers. The Fitment Appellate Committee submitted its report, recommending payment of uniform pay scales to trained as well as untrained lecturers observing that different pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers would be arbitrary and unreasonable. The State Government, however, maintained that there is difference between trained lecturers and untrained lecturers and difference in pay scales would not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition upheld the contention of the State Government and dismissed the petition filed by the Association holding that in making distinction between trained lecturers and untrained lecturers and in fixing different pay scales, State Government had not violated any provision of the Constitution and the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Division Bench, however, as observed earlier, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the single Judge and directed the State Authorities to grant uniform pay scales to trained and untrained lecturers. The order passed by the Division Bench is











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top