The executive has the primary domain to fix pay scales, yet cannot use policy delays to ignore judicial directives or violate the constitutional mandate of providing fair working conditions. Courts may enforce the duty to formulate service conditions but should avoid usurping the executive role of arbitrarily setting wage quanta.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

[WA Nos.667, 985, 1000, 1051, 1075, 1356, 1522, 1564, 1657, 1659, 1834, 1846, 1907, 2006, 2033, 2616, 2620, 2669, 2726, 2767 of 2025 and 4 of 2026]

These writ appeals are a classic example of how the state machinery can make a particular class of employees run pillar to post, seeking redressal of their grievance for fixation of pay and other service Conditions, by adopting various delay tactics and bureaucratic laziness, though the incumbents obtained a judgment in their favour from the Division Bench of this Court, as early as on 01.08.2012.

2. For convenience, we refer the parties and documents in this judgment as in W.A.No.667 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

3. The party respondents in these writ appeals are pre-primary school Teachers and Ayahs attached to various Government pre-primary schools, who were appointed by the Parent Teachers Associations of the respective schools. The grievance projected by them has a checkered history. Going by the pleadings in the writ petitions, the pre-primary sections attached to the Government Schools are being run by the Parent- Teachers Associations, based on Government Orders of 1988. The initial scheme was to appoint qualified staff therein, and their emoluments were to be paid by collecting Rs.15/- per month from the students. By the said scheme, the pre-primary Teachers and Ayahs were getting only meager emoluments, and that too not regularly. Later, the Government started paying honorarium to them, which has been raised to Rs.900/- and Rs.600/- per month, respectively, to the pre-primary Teachers and Ayahs. Since there was no hike in the honorarium for several years, the Association of pre-primary Teachers and Ayahs and some individual employees of the respective category approached this Court for redressal of their grievance by filing W.P.(C)No.2700 of 2009 seeking their absorption into Government Service and to fix their service conditions. Though the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 27.01.2011 dismissed that writ petition, by Ext.P1 judgment dated 01.08.2012 in W.A.No.205 of 2011, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ appeal by disposing of the writ petition with certain directions.

3.1. On 03.07.2012, when W.A.No.205 of 2011 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, by noting that the minimum wages fixed by the Government for pre-primary school Teachers in the unaided schools ten years back to that date was Rs.2,500/- per month, and noting the high rate of inflation for over the past ten years and the increase in wages and salaries paid to Government staff and others, the Division Bench suggested Government that the pre-primary school Teachers should be paid at least Rs.5,000/- per month and Ayahs Rs.3,500/- per month. In the writ appeal, the learned Government Pleader produced a communication issued by the General Education Department on 21.07.2012 stating that the Government had been taking earnest steps to comply with the court direction contained in the interim order, i.e., pertaining to payment of wages as mentioned above. However, it was stated by the Government that the additional annual financial commitment of the Government will be to the tune of rupees 14 crores and therefore, clearance from the Finance Department is required. Therefore, the Division Bench posted the case to 01.0