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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2162

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.

All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Associations (AAPETA) Represented by its Vice President, Shri Pill Takur, S/o Late Pill Teni - Appellant 
Versus
The State Of AP and Ors. - Respondent 
WP(C) 466(AP) of 2022, WP(C) 151(AP) of 2018
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocate Appeared : 
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, C. Modi, Uttam Deka, A.Saring.
For the Respondent : Mr. I. Chowdhury, Advocate General, Mr. T.Tagum, SC, (Education)

State Governments are not bound by Central Pay Commission recommendations; administrative discretion prevails in financial matters regarding salary claims.

Headnote:(A) Central Pay Commission Recommendations - The 5th and 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations are not binding on State Governments. The State has discretion in financial matters. (Paras 3, 41)

(B) Estoppel and Waiver - Petitioners cannot claim arrear salary as no Cabinet decision was taken to alter the implementation of pay scale. Members of the previous association renounced their claims. (Paras 11, 27)

(C) Delay and Laches - The writ petition was not barred by delay as earlier petitions allowed refiling. (Paras 33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed their right to arrear salary from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2013 as per Central Pay Commission recommendations. Earlier claims filed were rejected by the State. Respondents admitted some claims but later denied them based on alleged misconduct by officials.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were already receiving revised pay as per the 5th and 6th CPC from different dates, hence no arrear claims were justified.

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the claim for arrears and the role of delayed claims along with administrative discretion by the State.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission do not obligate the state, emphasizing that salary rights cannot be denied without reasonable justification.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claim for arrear salary based on cpc recommendations. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on waiver and estoppel regarding salary claims. (Para 8 , 10 , 12)
3. right to salary as a constitutional right under articles 21 and 300-a. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. state's authority on policy decisions related to salary. (Para 39 , 41)
5. petitioners' claim denied based on acceptance of revised pay scale. (Para 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

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 5 and 6 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

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top