Only regularly appointed teacher is entitled for increments and other benefits.

This writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the, salary of the petitioner on par with the teacher who is paid his pay out of the Government aid. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the second respondent school which is Management aided school. Originally, the petitioner was appointed as a Typist on 2.12.1992 and thereafter she was appointed as a relieving teacher on 3.3.1993 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 800/- per month and a fresh appointment has been issued. During this entire period, she has been working as a relieving teacher in the second respondent school upto 30.4.1998. It is admitted that after 30.4.1998, the petitioner has not worked in the second respondent school.

2. According to the petitioner, it is because the third respondent became the Headmaster, she was unable to continue as a relieving teacher in the second respondent school. In any event, as it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is claiming only her salary on par with the other teachers of the aided school for the period of service rendered by her.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The second respondent while admitting that the petitioner was appointed as a relieving teacher has stated that, the said appointment was purely based on the contract between the petitioner and the second respondent and a consolidated pay had been fixed and the appointment was never made in accordance with the Tamil Nadu (Recognized) Private Schools Regulation Act. Inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, there was no question of equating the petitioner's service to that of other regularly appointed teachers of aided schools. As the salary amounts have been paid by the second respondent without getting permission from the Government, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed for.

4. Mr. K. Shanmughakani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner is called as a relieving teacher, which means that the petitioner relieving of some regularly appointed teacher and she was doing infact the regularly appointed teacher's work. In view of the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by applying equal pay for equal work, the petitioner is entitled for the salary on par with the other teachers employed on the aided pattern.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another AIR 1998 SC 295: 1997 (3) SCC 571 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the element of public interest requires to regulate conditions of service of those employees on par with Government employees. Such employees are entitled to parity of pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government. Therefore, the appellants in that case were held to seek for enforcement of Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the concept of equal pay for equal work.

6. As stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, Mr. K. Shanmughakani, the learned counsel, has stated that though the petitioner was working as a relieving teacher, in fact, the petitioner was doing the actual work of a regular teacher and on certain occasions, the work was more than that of a regular teacher. It is further the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner has been working within the sanctioned strength allocated by the Educational Authority to the second respondent school, the petitioner should be paid equal pay for equal work as that of the other equally placed teachers in the aided schools.

7. In such circumstances, instead of receiving a consolidated pay, the petitioner has statutory right to claim equal pay for equal work.

8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Thangasivan, learn