1. Teacher rendered surplus due to change in education pattern — Absorption in junior college with lower pay scale — Claim for pay protection under Government Resolutions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 823
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
AHALYA A. SAMTANEY – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No.__8292_ of 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.25448/2017]
Decided On : 16-08-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Artificial breaks of one day in service deprecated.
Artificial breaks of one day in service deprecated.
Subject
Employment Law - Teacher Employment
Headnote
Service law – regularization of pay scale – Resolution dated 11.6.1976 and Resolution dated 27.11.1991 – Appellant not fitting in any of the categories of P-1 to P-5 as per Resolution dated 11.6.and to P-5 did not fulfill the parameters thereof – Appellant falling in “rest category” as per Resolution dated 27.11.1991 and therefore entitled to pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 from her initial appointment date – College also classifying her in rest category – However appellant was given the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 from 1.10.1976 instead of Rs.700-1600 – Government denying claim of rest category on basis of artificial break of one day on 30.09.1976 – Deprecated – Such break arising due to internal adjustment from the change in curriculum – Further, she is getting pension which is admissible only in case of continuous service – Appellant held entitled to be treated in pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 as also to all benefits of the Resolution dated 27.11.1991. (Para 23)
Writ Petition No.2903/1989 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as a tutor of English in the H.R. College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai (respondent No.6), in which position she carried on her professional duties from 15.12.1974 to 31.7.75 in the grade pay-scale of Rs.250-15-400. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the University of Mumbai (respondent No.4) on 15.5.1975.
The appellant was promoted as a Lecturer of English in the Senior College w.e.f. 1.8.1975. The appellant continued to work in that capacity up to 30.9.1976 in the revised grade pay-scale of Rs.700-50-1600.
A new pattern of education was introduced from June, 1976 under the pattern of 10+2+3, as a consequence of which the appellant was rendered fully surplus in the senior college. The Government of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) conscious of such consequences, laid down certain guidelines for absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the new 10+2+3 pattern. In view of these guidelines the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher in English now in the junior college w.e.f. 1.10.1976, in the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 instead of Rs.700-50-1600.
On 3.6.1977 the appellant took up the issue of her reappointment as a full time lecturer in college in view of the fact that she had been working for two years with respondent No.6 College and in response thereto on 14.6.1977, the Principal of the College informed the appellant that the college was appointing her as a full time lecturer of English in the junior college and that her salary would remain the same.
The appellant’s salary revised to Rs.700-50-1600 from 1.8.1975, i.e., the date of her promotion as a lecturer in the senior college.
By the order dated 19.6.1978, the Principal of the College appointed her as a full time Lecturer in the Junior College and thereafter allowing her to contribute to the Provident Fund. The College informed the Joint Director of Higher Education that they were desirous of absorbing the appellant in the Degree College w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and to fix her pay in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 from 1.12.1993. This absorption was approved by the University by the order dated 31.1.1994.
The appellant sought regularisation of her pay-scale, a grievance, which was not redressed, which resulted in her filing writ petition before the High Court.
High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant is entitled to be treated in pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 as also to all benefits of the Resolution dated 27.11.1991.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims pay protection under surplus teacher guidelines — Respondents contend lack of continuous service due to artificial break and incorrect category classification. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
3. One-day break in service was artificial and curriculum-driven — Pension grant confirms continuous service — Delay in filing petition does not bar recovery of earned emoluments. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Artificial breaks in service caused by administrative adjustments or curriculum changes cannot be used to deny employees' benefits or security of tenure. (Para 20 , 21 )
5. Appeal allowed — Respondents directed to calculate and remit emoluments based on the protected pay scale within three months. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Does an artificial break in service caused by administrative changes disqualify an employee from receiving service benefits?
No. Artificial breaks resulting from internal adjustments, such as changes in educational curriculum, should not be used to deny benefits or security of tenure, especially when the overall service record indicates continuity. (Para 20 , 21 )
7. Can the doctrine of delay and laches prevent an employee from claiming arrears of pay for work already performed?
No. Delay in filing a petition does not stand in the way of an employee receiving emoluments that were admissible for work already performed. (Para 22 )
8. How can the grant of pension be used to establish continuous service in the face of alleged breaks?
Since pension is typically granted only upon completion of a minimum period of continuous service, the grant of pension serves as evidence supporting the continuity of the employee's service. (Para 18 , 21 )
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant obtained a Post Graduate degree (M.A.) and thereafter completed her Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). She was appointed as a tutor of English in the H.R. College of Commerce and Economics, Mumbai (respondent No.6), in which position she carried on her professional duties from 15.12.1974 to 31.7.75 in the grade pay-scale of Rs.250-15-400. The then existing pattern of education was of 10 years schooling and 4 years of college. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the University of Mumbai (respondent No.4) on 15.5.1975.
3. The appellant continued to work as a tutor in English till 31.7.1975, when she was promoted as a Lecturer of English in the Senior College w.e.f. 1.8.1975. The appellant continued to work in that capacity up to 30.9.1976 in the revised grade pay-scale of Rs.700-50-1600.
4. A new pattern of education was introduced from June, 1976 under the pattern of 10+2+3, as a consequence of which the appellant was rendered fully surplus in the senior college. The Government of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) conscious of such consequences, laid down certain guidelines for absorption of the lecturers rendered surplus due to the new 10+2+3 pattern vide the Government Resolution No. HSC.1076/419-XX-XXI dated 11th June 1976. It is in view of these guidelines that the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher in English now in the junior college w.e.f. 1.10.1976, in the pay-scale of Rs.500-900 instead of Rs.700-50-1600.
5. It is on 3.6.1977 that the appellant took up the issue of her reappointment as a full time lecturer in college in view of the fact that she had been working for two years with respondent No.6 College and in response thereto on 14.6.1977, the Principal of the College informed the appellant that the college was appointing her as a full time lecturer of English in the junior college and that her salary would remain the same.
6. The Government of Maharashtra by Resolution dated 25.10.1977 sought to revise the pay-scales of University and School teachers retrospectively from 1.1.1973. The consequence of this for the appellant was that her salary was revised to Rs.700-50-1600 from 1.8.1975, i.e., the date of her promotion as a lecturer in the senior college.
7. The other developments which took place were that by the order dated 19.6.1978, the Principal of the College appointed her as a full time Lecturer in the Junior College and thereafter allowing her to contribute to the Provident Fund. The College informed the Joint Director of Higher Education that they were desirous of absorbing the appellant in the Degree College w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and to fix her pay in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 from 1.12.1993. This absorption was approved by the University by the order dated 31.1.1994. There were certain other communications also exchanged in the same direction.
8. The appellant sought regularisation of her pay-scale, a grievance, which was not redressed, which resulted in her filing writ petition No.1840/1998, before the Bombay High Court. The gravamen of the case of the appellant in the High Court was that the appellant was squarely covered by a Government Resolution dated 11.6.1976, which dealt with cases like those of the appellant being rendered surplus. Since the appellant was appointed as a full time teacher of English in Junior College w.e.f. 1.10.1976, the appellant claimed protection of her pay.
9. It is the case of the appellant that the appendix to the Government Resolution of 11.6.1976 contains the guidelines for absorption of teachers determined as surplus at college levels. The appendix has a number of clauses, but what is germane for the present controversy is clause No.(iii) on which reliance is placed by the appellant and reads as under:
“(iii) College teachers who were in service on or before 7th February, 1975 and were also in continuous service upto the end of the academic year 1975-76 in a college or colleges under the sam
