Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, S.R. Sen, JJ.
Meghalaya College Teachers Association - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 281, 360 of 2017
Decided On : 01-11-2018
Teachers of Deficit Grant-in-Aid Colleges and Ad-hoc Grant-in-Aid Colleges are entitled to pension and other benefits on par with Government College Teachers. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, associations of teachers working in deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges in the State of Meghalaya, filed writ petitions challenging the denial of pension and other benefits to them on par with government college teachers. The petitioners contended that the Contributory Provident Fund for the college teachers of deficit/adhoc/aided colleges were not maintained in a Schedule Bank and is simply kept in a Savings Bank account where the interest is much more less than the Schedule Bank and until that is corrected by the respondents, the teachers are bound to suffer. The respondents-State contended that the teachers of deficit/adhoc/aided colleges have no right to file this instant writ petition to claim equality and the same benefits as enjoyed by the government college teachers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges are entitled to pension and other benefits on par with government college teachers. The Court observed that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification. The Court further held that the Government of Meghalaya has adopted most of the Acts and Rules of the Assam Government, and directed the Government to adopt the Assam Deficit College Employees (Pension) Rules, 1998, the Assam Non-Government (Deficit) College Central Pension and Provident Fund Act, 1997, the Assam Non-Government School and College Employees Centralised Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1969 and the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962.
Issues: 1. Whether the teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges are entitled to pension and other benefits on par with government college teachers? 2. Whether the Government of Meghalaya can deny pension and other benefits to the teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges on the ground that they are not government employees?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges are entitled to pension and other benefits on par with government college teachers based on the following grounds: 1. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification. 2. The Government of Meghalaya has adopted most of the Acts and Rules of the Assam Government, which provide for pension and other benefits to teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the Government of Meghalaya to provide pension and other benefits to the teachers of deficit grant-in-aid colleges and ad-hoc grant-in-aid colleges on par with government college teachers. The Court also directed the Government to adopt the Assam Deficit College Employees (Pension) Rules, 1998, the Assam Non-Government (Deficit) College Central Pension and Provident Fund Act, 1997, the Assam Non-Government School and College Employees Centralised Provident Fund Scheme Act, 1969 and the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962.
JUDGMENT :
S.R. Sen, J.
1. Both these two writ petitions, WP (C) No. 281/2017 and WP (C) No. 360/2017 are taken up together as they are similar in nature and will be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case in WP (C) No. 281 of 2017 is that:
"The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate writ or any other appropriate order or direction to respondent State authorities to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme) as adopted by the State of Meghalaya for the employees of Deficit Grants in Aid Colleges and for further implementation of the provisions Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and any and all other schemes framed under the provisions of the Act with regard to the respondent no. 4 to 18 till the provisions of the CPF Scheme are implemented in totality, so as to enable the college teachers of Deficit Grant-in-Aid Colleges in the State of Meghalaya to reap the benefits of the aforesaid beneficial legislation's and for further directions for implementation of a post retirement Social Security Scheme. It is stated that in WA 14/2001 arising out of order dated 6-7-2001 passed in WP (C) 139 (SH)/2001, this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 7-12-2005 held that it is an admitted position that college teachers of Deficit Grant-in-Aid colleges are entitled to pension on their superannuation. The prayer of the writ petitioners therein to impose the liability of pension on the State of Meghalaya was rejected on the ground that the petitioners or for that matter employees of Deficit Grant-in-Aid colleges are not employee of the State of Meghalaya.
The petitioner no 1 (Association) had filed WP (C) 54/2017 before this Hon'ble Court praying for directions for implementation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh in view of the assertions and averments brought on record by the respondents therein.
It is an admitted position of the respondents that the provisions of the Contributory Provident Scheme have been applied more in violation than in compliance, inasmuch as, there is no consolidated pool for the provident fund, accounts are being maintained in individual Saving Banks Accounts. It is also a matter of record that the process for introducing a formidable post retirement Social Security Scheme has been underway since the last more than 11 years, without such scheme being formalized. Even contribution of Rs. 1 Crore made in this regard has remained unutilized till date. Due to the unlawful acts of the respondents, the Teachers of Deficit Grants in Aid Colleges of State of Meghalaya have been denied the benefits of not only the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, they are also deprived of the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme professed to be adopted by the State of Meghalaya and on their superannuation, there is no social security scheme to protect their right to a dignified life. WP(C) no 254/2017 filed on similar grounds was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after correction of few inadvertent errors in the same.
Hence, this writ petition."
The brief facts of the petitioner's case in WP (C) No. 360 of 2017 is that:
"The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate writ or any other appropriate order or direction to respondent State authorities to ensure in respect of employees of the Ad hoc grant in aid colleges in the State the implementation of the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and any and all other schemes frame
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
