The right to salary is constitutional, but the government can deny arrears based on financial constraints, especially when revised pay scales have been accepted.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, representing the State respondents.

2. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the decision of the respondent authorities pertains to Arrear Salary for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 and the decision in fixing the Pay Scale notionally from the stage of 5th CPC w.e.f 01.04.1998 without Arrear Salary as illegal and prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for payment of Arrear Salary of Primary/Elementary Teachers serving under the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013, as per the 5th Central Pay Commission.

3. In view of the facts and relief sought for in the two writ petitions being identical, both were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The WP(C) No. 151/2018 has been filed by the petitioners, 6(six) in numbers, who are serving as Primary/Elementary Teachers in the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. WP(C) 466/2022 has been filed by the All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Associations (AAPETA) represented by its Vice President on behalf of all the members of the petitioners Association.

5. The case projected by the writ petitioners, shorn of unnecessary details, is with regard to non-payment of arrear salary of Primary/Elementary Teachers serving under the Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013, as per recommendation made by the 5th & 6th central pay commission (hereinafter referred to as CPC in short). The basic contention made is that as per the recommendation of 5th and 6th CPC they are entitled to receive Arrear salary for the period w.e.f 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013.

6. Earlier, some of the petitioners approached this court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No.21/2014, seeking the same relief as sought for in the present writ petitions. It was also contended in the said writ petition that while adopting both the CPC by the State Cabinet, the Govt. did not take any further decision that due to financial constrains no any financial benefits accrued under the said CPC would be paid to any teachers working in various schools in the State except the notional fixation benefits w.e.f 01.04.2013. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed by an order dated 25.05.2014 and remanded the matter back to the State Govt. for examination of the claim of the those petitioners with a further direction for passing a Speaking Order. The Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh rejected the claim of the petitioners vide Order dated 04.10.2014 holding that those petitioners are not entitled to the arrear salary for the aforesaid period except the benefits of notional fixation of Pay Scale on consideration of extreme financial constraint.

7. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No.463/2014 was filed which was dismissed on withdrawal with a liberty to file a fresh. Hence, these present Writ Petitions.

8. By filing the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent authorities took a stand that in terms of the decision taken by the Govt. vide Order dated 15.02.2013, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any Arrear Salary for the period w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 except the benefit of notional fixation of Revised Pay Scale due to extreme financial constraint faced by the Govt. The respondents also took a stand that in terms of the negotiation arrived at between the Education Department and Arunachal Teachers Association (hereinafter referred to as ATA), the petitioners are not entitled to any Arrear Salary. It appears from the said Affidavit that the respondents admitted the fact that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh or the Cabinet did never modify or alter or amend the recommendation made by 5th and 6th CPC to any considerable extent but that that does no