Arrear Salary Claim by Arunachal Elementary Teachers Dismissed by Gauhati High Court

Itanagar: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a plea by the All Arunachal Pradesh Elementary Teachers Associations (AAPETA) and individual teachers seeking payment of arrear salary for the period between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 2013, based on the recommendations of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions (CPC).

Justice Kardak Ete , presiding over the case (WP(C) 466(AP)/2022 and WP(C) 151(AP)/2018), held that the State Government's decision to grant notional pay fixation for the disputed period but actual financial benefit only from April 1, 2013, was a conscious policy decision within its prerogative and not open to judicial interference, especially as Pay Commission recommendations are not binding on states.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioners, comprising teachers and their association, contended they were entitled to arrear salary for the 15-year period as the State Government had adopted the recommendations of the 5th and 6th CPCs. They argued that the State could not deny their legitimate dues citing financial constraints or based on an alleged waiver by the Arunachal Teachers Association ( ATA ), to which many of the petitioners belonged. The petitioners asserted that the right to salary is a fundamental and constitutional right that cannot be waived.

Previously, some petitioners had approached the court in 2014 (WP(C) No.21/2014) seeking the same relief. The court had remanded the matter to the government for a speaking order. The government subsequently rejected the claim for arrears, citing financial constraints, and granted only notional fixation for the period, with actual benefits from April 1, 2013, via an Order dated February 15, 2013. This led to the filing of the present writ petitions after an earlier petition (WP(C) No.463/2014) was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

State's Defence and Shifting Stands

The State respondents initially filed affidavits in 2022 and 2023, appearing to admit the petitioners' claim for arrears, stating the government found the claim "genuine and appropriate." However, in a subsequent affidavit filed in September 2023, the State took a complete reversal, disputing the claim and alleging that the earlier affidavits were filed without authority or knowledge of the competent officer (Secretary, Education Department) due to collusion by subordinate officers. The State stated that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the officers responsible for filing the earlier affidavits.

Beyond the affidavit controversy, the State's primary defence rested on: 1. The claim being barred by delay and laches. 2. The petitioners being members of ATA , which had previously renounced the claim, invoking principles of waiver and estoppel. 3. The government's decision to grant notional fixation with actual benefits from April 1, 2013, being a conscious policy decision due to financial considerations, which is not judicially reviewable. 4. Pay Commission recommendations not being binding on State Governments.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court first addressed the preliminary objections. It dismissed the plea of delay and laches, noting the historical context of earlier litigation and the liberty granted to file fresh petitions. While acknowledging the argument regarding waiver and estoppel based on ATA 's actions had "some force," the court decided to consider the matter on its merits rather than non-suiting the petitioners solely on this ground.

On the merits, the court examined the implementation of the Pay Commissions by the State. It noted that the State had indeed implemented the 5th and 6th CPC recommendations through official memoranda. However, the court observed that the specific higher pay scale sought by the teachers for the disputed period was based on a Government of India letter from April 4, 2002, which was originally meant for Union Territories and not the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The State's decision to adopt this scale, as reflected in the Order dated February 15, 2013, was in response to a demand from the ATA and involved a policy choice to grant notional benefit from 1998 but actual financial benefit only from 2013.

The court highlighted that the teachers had accepted the revised pay scale as notified by the Education Department in 2013, which stipulated the actual benefit commencement date. Having already received revised pay scales under the State's implementation of the 5th and 6th CPCs, the court found the petitioners were "barred from claiming arrear salary" for the period between 1998 and 2013.

Regarding the conflicting affidavits, the court was not swayed by the earlier affidavits that admitted the claim, accepting the State's explanation that they were filed without proper authority and based on misrepresentation by subordinate officers.

Citing various Supreme Court decisions, the court reiterated the settled principle that Pay Commission recommendations are not binding on State Governments and that courts should not interfere with policy decisions, especially those with significant financial implications for the State.

Based on this reasoning, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the petitioners' claim for arrear salary from April 1, 1998, to March 31, 2013, was "unjustified."

Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed for being devoid of merit. No order was made as to costs.