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

2022 Supreme(Tri) 29

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Indrajit Mahanty, CJ., S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
State of Tripura & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Narayan Chandra Dey - Respondent
WA No. 223 of 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv, Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Adv, Ms. Ankita Pal, Advocate, for the Respondent

Equal pay for equal work is mandated, and entitlements under identical circumstances must be uniformly applied, per Article 14, with financial benefits limited to three years prior to petition filing.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Pay Scale - The State's directive to extend the pay scale of graduate teachers to the respondent from 01.01.1993 was upheld, establishing that non-granting of appropriate pay scale for identical cases constitutes a violation of equality. (Para 10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court re-evaluated the learned Single Judge's order, emphasizing that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally under the law. It determined the respondent was entitled to back wages consistent with prior judgments, but granted financial relief only from three years before the writ petition was filed. (Paras 19-21)

Facts of the case:
The private respondent claimed entitlement to the graduate teacher pay scale from 01.01.1993 due to his substantive appointment on 28.06.1990 when the school was recognized under Grant-In-Aid, while the State argued against retrospective benefits.

Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the right of the respondent to graduate teacher pay scale from 01.01.1993 but limited back wages to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.

Issues: Whether non-granting of graduate pay scale constituted discrimination and the applicability of prior judgments to the current case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that identical treatment under the same circumstances is mandated by Article 14, thus the respondent deserved similar benefits as conferred in previous cases, but modified the financial relief based on delays in filing.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Partha Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State appellants as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior advocate assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty and Ms. Ankita Pal, advocates for the private respondent.

2. State appellants have challenged the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1149 of 2016 by which the private respondent, a graduate teacher of Budhai Saha Primary School under Grant-In-Aid, was granted pay scale of graduate teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and the State appellants (respondents before the learned Single Judge) were directed to pay him back wages within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

3. Brief facts are as under:

By issuing appointment letter No.F 1-B.S.P.S/90 dated 28.06.1990, the Secretary, Budhai Saha Primary School of Bridhyanagar, Agartala engaged the private respondent (petitioner before the learned Single Judge) as an Assistant Headmaster in Budhai Saha Primary School. The said school was a private school at the time when the private respondent was engaged as an Assistant Headmaster in the school. By virtue of Memorandum No.F.10(10-39)-DSE/90 dated 11.03.1992 issued by the Director of School Education, the said school was recognized by the State Government and by a subsequent Memorandum No.F.10(10-39)-DSE/90 dated 19.12.1992 said Budhai Saha Primary School was included in the Grant-In-Aid scheme of the Government with prospective effect from 01.01.1993 and all the appointments made by the Managing Committee prior to 19.12.1992 were approved by the State Government. However, it was made clear that further appointments would be regulated by the Grant-In-Aid Rules and no post of teaching or non-teaching staff of the school would be filled up without the approval of the competent authority.

4. The private respondent (petitioner before the learned Single Judge) claimed that he joined the school as a graduate teacher. This was also reflected in Memo No.F.10(10-39)-DSE/95 dated 28.11.1994 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Director of School Education wherein the name of the private respondent appeared in Sl. No.1 as a graduate teaching staff of the school. On induction of the said school under the Grant-In-Aid scheme, the private respondent had represented to the competent authority for providing him designated scale of graduate teachers from the date of his appointment in terms of office Memorandum No.F.4(62)-Fin(PC)/92 dated 07.12.1992 issued from the Finance Department. Even though he was given the benefit of one advance increment w.e.f. 01.01.1993 vide Memo No.F.10(10-39)-DSE/95 dated 16.01.1999 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition), the benefit of pay scale of graduate teachers admissible to the graduate teachers of Government Schools was not extended to him. The respondent (petitioner before the learned Single Judge) claimed that according to Rule 7(ii) of Tripura Grant-In-Aid (Government Aided School) Rules, 2005 all the entitlements of teaching and non-teaching employees of the schools under Grant-In-Aid shall be the same as that of the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Schools, subject to condition that the rules and regulations determining the recruitment of such teaching and non-teaching employees are strictly adhered to. It was so clarified by the State Government by a Memorandum dated 10.05.1993 issued from the Directorate of School Education which reads as under:

'Government of Tripura

Directorate of School Education (Grant-in-Aid Section)

Dated, Agartala, the 10th May, 1993.

M E M O R A N D U M

The undersigned is directed to say that the teachers of Grant-in-Aid Schools in Tripura are enjoying Pay Scales at par with those of Govt. Schools, under the Provision contained in the State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The benefit of higher Pay Scales in the appropriate grade & also grant of higher Pay Scales on acquiring of higher qualification in respective tr

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