Shiksha Karmis, governed by the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998, are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 only, which are being paid to them. No parity in pay-scale with Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 538 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has not interfered with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in which the appellants - original writ petitioners prayed for grant of equal pay-scale as admissible to teachers appointed in the Municipal services under the Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1968), the original writ petitioners - Shiksha Karmis have preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective petitioners were appointed as Shikha Karmis under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998). The Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 were subsequently substituted by the Chhattisgarh Shiksha (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Sewa Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013. That the original writ petitioners submitted representations praying for grant of equal pay-scale as admissible to teachers appointed in Municipal services, which came to be rejected. The respective appellants filed the writ petition before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. The appellants - original writ petitioners preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellants - original writ petitioners - Shiksha Karmis.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants - original writ petitioners has submitted that the respective appellants are serving as teachers. That they are the persons, who were appointed in the year 1998 under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 to teach in the schools under the control of the respondent Municipality. It is submitted that they are not the persons whose nature of appointment was ever in the form and manner of contract employees.

3.1 It is submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998, the probation period for a Shiksha Karmi would be for 3 to 5 years. That after the probation period is over and the respective Shiksha Karmis are confirmed as per Rule 7, they are entitled to regular pay- scale as applicable to Municipality teachers from the date of appointment. It is submitted that in the present case, the respective Shiksha Karmis were appointed under Rule 5 and were confirmed in the year 2001 after completion of their probation period. It is contended that therefore, they are entitled to the regular pay-scale, which is being paid to the Municipality Teachers, as per the mandate of Rule 7 of the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998.

3.2 It is urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that though the Shiksha Karmis and the teachers appointed by the Municipality under the Rules, 1968 are performing the same/similar duties, as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendation, they are put in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800/- for Grade I Class 9 to 12, against which the Municipality teachers are given 3% increment every year on the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800/-.

It is submitted that the Municipality teachers are also getting HRA/DA/SA/Medical/Old Pension Scheme/GPF/Ex-Gratia/Every 10 Year Promotion. However, so far as the Shiksha Karmis are concerned, no such benefits are given to them. It is submitted that when the Shiksha Karmis are performing the same kind of work; teaching the similar class; having similar educational qualification; similar syllabus; similar Education Board and under the same controlling authority, not being paid the same pay-scale as being paid to the teachers of the Municipality is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constituti