Teachers in private aided institutions are not equivalent to government employees; therefore, they cannot claim service benefits or salary parity as a matter of right, especially when claims involve financial policy decisions outside the scope of judicial interference.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking for following reliefs :-

i) the respondents no.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to release aid and pay salary to the petitioners by giving the benefit of two advance increments for having acquired B.Ed. qualification, from the date of appointment/acquiring the qualification.

ii) any other relief including costs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted."

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are working or retired or legal heirs of deceased teachers on the various post of Teachers in different Aided Institutions run by respondent No.3 Society. Since all the petitioners are getting grant in aid from State Government and upto the year 2000, 100% grant-in-aid was given to the schools and after the year 2000, the aid was reduced and now 50% aid is being given as per interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that petitioners have acquired B.Ed. while in service or before entering in the service. They have all attained the said qualification on their own cost and not at the expense of State Government and submitted that institution of petitioners are covered under provisions of M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 ( in short ' the Act of 1978). It is submitted that they are all getting 50% of salary to which they were getting in the year 2000 as per interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that State Government had issued orders pertaining to grant of two advance increments to all those teachers who have acquired B.Ed. qualification prior to 16.05.1993 and have acquired the qualification upto 01.03.1999 and submitted that prior to this circular State Government has issued another circular dated 13.05.1994 providing for grant of advance increments to the teachers who acquired B.Ed./BTI while in service. It is further submitted that B.Ed. was not essential qualification for payment like in the case of teachers of Government Institution and B.Ed. was preferential qualification and not as an essential qualification. Some dispute arose about the teachers who had completed B.Ed. prior to entering into the service and matter went uptill the Apex Court and Apex Court in the case of Asha Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others, passed in Civil Appeal No.3408/2008, whereby it has been held that said benefit to be payable to those who attained the qualification prior to entry in service also. It is further submitted that respondents have denied benefit on the sole ground that they are teachers of Government Aided Institutions and not of Government Schools and submitted that action of respondents is discriminatory. It is submitted that as per the revised grant-in aid Rules of State Government enforced in the year 1979, a vested right was created by Rule 33 to claim the same pay and scale of pay is being paid to the similarly situated teachers in Government Institutions.

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that petitioners have no locus standi to file present petition for claiming the benefit in question as they have not submitted any representation before competent authority and all the petitioners were working in Respondent No.3-Institution/Shri Tekchand Jain Vidyapeeth Samiti. Respondent No.3 admittedly a non government private institution is receiving grant-in-aid from State Gove