(WWW - Entrance-Exam - Net) - Scholastic Aptitude Test, Physics Sample Paper 1
(WWW - Entrance-Exam - Net) - Scholastic Aptitude Test, Physics Sample Paper 1
(WWW - Entrance-Exam - Net) - Scholastic Aptitude Test, Physics Sample Paper 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY)
Date : 31-10-2017
Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
14/92
No. 7497 of 2017 has been filed by Md. Wazim Raza & ors.,
CWJC No. 20667 of 2014 has been filed by one Subodh Kumar,
School. CWJC No. 1370 of 2017 has been filed by Bihr Panchayat
CWJC No. 13307 of 2016 has been filed by Sushil Kumar Singh
4151 of 2017 has been filed by Rakesh Kumar and another teacher.
fact and law are involved and as such they have been heard
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
15/92
order/judgment.
facts and pleadings of the parties. So far as the writ petition filed
common as in their case also the same Rules 6 and 8 of 2006 Rules
the Constitution of India and they have also prayed for quashing of
reads as follows:-
“Rules – 6
¼i½ uxj fudk; {ks= esa vofLFkr jktdh;] jktdh;d`r ek/;fed fo/kky;ksa ds
f’k{kdksa ds fy, fo"k;okj fjDr inksa dh lwpuk dk izdk’ku ftyk esa de ls
de 15 fnuksa rd fd;k tk;sxkA
¼ii½ izR;sd ftyk eq[;;ky; esa ljdkj }kjk fpfUgr ,d fo/kky; dks vkn’kZ
fo/kky; ds :Ik esa fodlhr fd;k tkuk gSA ljdkj }kjk fpfUgr ,sls vkn’kZ
fo/kky; bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu vkPNkfnr ugha le>sa tk;saxas ,oa ,sls vkn’kZ
fo/kky;ksa esa f’k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr;k¡] lsok’krZ bR;kfn vyx ls fu/kkZfjr fd;sa
tk;saxsaA
¼iii½ fofgr izi= ¼vuqlwph&1½ esa uxj ek/;fed ,oa uxj mPPkrj ek/;fed f’k{kd
ds fu;kstu gsrq vkosnu ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa izkIr gksxsa rFkk
rqjar ,d izkfIr jlhn nh tk,xh@Hksth tk,xhA
ijUrq uxj iapk;r ,oa uxj ifj"kn~ esa vofLFkr ek/;fed ,oa mPPkrj
ek/;fed fo/kky;ksa dh fjfDr ds fo:} vkosnu fofgr izi= ¼vuqlwph&1½ esa
voj ize.My f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa izkIr gksxsaA
¼iv½ uxj ek/;fed f’k{kd ds fy, iSuy fuEu :is.k es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij
izf’kf{kr ,oa vizf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ dk vyx&vyx rS;kj fd;k tk,xkA&
1- ewy ;ksX;rk ¼Lukrd½ dk vf/kHkkj vad]
vFkok Lukrd izfr"Bk dk vf/kHkkj vad] & izkIrkad dk izfr’kr
2- mPprj ek/;fed ijh{kk vFkok bUVjfefM,V
ijh{kk dk vf/kHkkj vad & izkIrkad dk izfr’kr
3- ek/;fed ijh{kk dk vf/kHkkj vad & izkIrkad dk izfr’kr
4- ch0,M0 dk vf/kHkkj vad izkIrkad dk izfr’kr
mijksDr lHkh izkIrkad dk izfr’kr dks tksM+dj mlesa pkj ls Hkkx nsus ij
tks izfr’kr izkIr gksxk] og ml vH;FkhZ dk es/kk vad gksxkA vizf’kf{kr
vH;kFkhZ ds fy, izkIrkad ds izfr’kr dks tksM+dj rFkk rhu ls Hkkx nsdj
es/kk vad fudkyk tk;sxkA ijarq Lukrd izfr"Bk ;ksX;rk/kkjh dks ik¡p vad
vfrfjDr tksM+k tk;sxkA
leku vad izkIr gksus ij ftudh tUe frfFk igys gksxh mUgsa iSuy
esa mij j[kk tk,xkA leku vad ,oa leku tUe frfFk gksus ij Mªk vkWQ
ykWV~ ds }kjk iSuy esa mij LFkku fu/kkZfjr gksxkA
¼v½ uxj mPprj ek/;fed f’k{kd ds fy, iSuy fuEu :is.k es/kk vad ds
vk/kkj ij izf’kf{kr ,oa vizf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ dk vyx&vyx rS;kj fd;k
tk,xk &
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
17/92
Rules.
fcgkj ljdkj
f’k{kk foHkkxA
ladYIk
lafpdk la[;k% 11@fo 1&08@2013@1530 iVuk] fnukad & 11 vxLr ] 2015
2- orZeku esa fu;ksftr f’k{kd ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k fu;r osru ij dk;Zjr gSaA
iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa ds ek/;e ls lHkh fu;ksftr izf’kf{kr] vizf’kf{kr izkFkfed]
ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed f’k{kd ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks fu;r osru ds LFkku ij
fuEuor~ vuq’kaflr osrueku nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS %&
2-3 izf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kdksa ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k dks
01 tqykbZ] 2015 ls 5200&20000 ds osrueku esa 5200 dk csfld osru ns; gksxk]
ftl ij izkFkfed f’k{kd ¼izf’kf{kr½ dks 2000 :Ik;s] izkFkfed f’k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
22/92
izf’kf{kr½] ek/;fed f’k{kd ¼izf’kf{kr½ dks 2000 :Ik;s] izkFkfed f’k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM
izf’kf{kr½] ek/;fed f’k{kd ¼izf’kf{kr½ ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k dks 2400 :Ik;s rFkk
mPPk ek/;fed ¼izf’kf{kr½ f’k{kd dks 2800 :Ik;s dk xzsM is ns; gksxkA iwoZ dh x;h
lsok ds fy, izR;sd rhu o"kZ dh lsok ds fy, ,d okf"kZd osru o`f} rhu izfr’kr
dh nj ls ns; gksxhA
2-4 vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] vizf’kf{kr ek/;fed ,oa vizf’kf{kr mPPk ek/;fed
f’k{kdksa dks 5200&20200 osrueku esa 01 tqykbZ] 2015 ls 5200 dk csfld osru
ns; gksxk] ijarq xzsM Iks ns; ugh gksxkA vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ,oa mPPk
ek/;fed f’k{kdksa dks izf’kf{kr gksus ds mijkar vuq’kaflr osrueku dk xzsM is ns;
gksxkA iwoZ esa dh x;h lsok ds fy, izR;sd rhu o"kZ dh lsok ds fy, ,d okf"kZd
osru o`f} rhu izfr’kr dh nj ls ns; gksxhA
2-5 izf’kf{kr ,oa vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kdksa ,ao
iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks le;≤ ij jkT; ljdkj ds dfeZ;ksa ds vuq:Ik ?kksf"kr
egaxkbZ HkRrk] fpfdRlk HkÙkk] edku fdjk;k HkÙrk ,oa ns; okf"kZd osru o`f} ns;
gksxhA
2-6 vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ,oa mPp ek/;fed f’k{kdksa dks 01 tqykbZ
2015 dks ns; osru esa de ls de U;wure 20 izfr’kr dh o`f} dh tk;sxhA ftu
ekeyksa esa 20 izfr’kr ls de o`f} fu/kkZfjr gksxh] oSls ekeyksa esa 20 izfr’kr rd
o`f} djus ds fy, 100 ds xq.kd esa jkf’k tksM+h tk;sxhA ftls oS;fDrd osru ekuk
tk,xkA oS;fDrd osru ij egaxkbZ HkÙkk ns; ugh gksxkA
2-7 vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd f’k{kd ¼Lukrd xzsM½ ,oa vizf’kf{kr ek/;fed f’k{kdksa
dks fo’ks"k HkÙkk ds :Ik esa 1000 :Ik;s izfrekg rFkk vizf’kf{kr mPp ek/;fed
f’k{kdksa dks fo’ks"k HkÙkk ds :Ik esa 1500 :Ik;s dh jkf’k izfrekg nh tk;sxh] ftlij
egaxkbZ HkÙkk ns; ugh gksxkA ;g jkf’k bl mns’; ls nh tk jgh gS fd izkFkfed]
iz[kaM] ek/;fed ,oa mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kd ds osru esa iwoZ dh HkkWfr vUrj jgsaA
2-8 fu;ksftr ,oa Hkfo"; esa fu;ksftr izf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ] mPPk
ek/;fed f’k{kdksa ,ao iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dks osrueku ds lkFk xzsM is dh ns;rk
mudh laok ds nks o"kZ iwjk gksus ds mijkar ns; gksxhA nks o"kZ dh dkyof/k esa bUgsa
vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] vizf’kf{kr ek/;fed] vizf’kf{kr mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kdkas ds
vuq:Ik osrueku ns; gksxkA
2-9 fu;ksftr vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ,oa mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kdksa dks
mudh izf’k{k.k vof/k esa mUgsa fufnZ"V osru ns; gksxkA bl laca/k esa ,oa vuq’kaflr
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
23/92
3- mijksDr vuq’kaflr osrueku dks dk;kZfUor djus ij ,d o"kZ esa yxHkx dqy foÙkh;
Hkkj fuEuor~ gksxk &
vfrfjDr foÙkh; Hkkj fooj.kh
Ø- Js.kh ykHkkfUor gksus osrueku~ ds fu;r osru Dqy
la- okys fu;ksftr vk/kkj ij ij orZeku vfrfjDr
f’k{kdksa Lak[;k dqy ns; ns; jkf’k foÙkh; Hkkj
jkf’k ¼jkf’k djksM+
esa½
1 izkFkfed f’k{kd 344114 6693-23 4173-21 2520-04
2 Ekk/;fed f’k{kd] 61233 1259-30 830-85 428-45
mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kd
,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k
dqy 405347 7952-55 5004-06 2948-49
4-+ dk;Zjr fu;ksftr izf’kf{kr] vizf’kf{kr f’k{kd ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{k dks rFkk Hkfo"; esa
fu;ksftr gksusoky f’k{kd rFkk iqLrdky;k/;{k dks mijksDr osrueku ns; gksxkA
fufnZ"V osrueku dk ctVh; izko/kku laxr 'kh"kZ esa fd;k tk;sxkA osrueku ds
fu/kkZj.k ds lac/k esa foÙk foHkkx dh lgefr ls f’k{kk foHkkx }kjk vyx ls foLr`r
fn’kk&funsZ’k fuxZr fd;k tk;sxkA
5-+ izkFkfed f’k{kk funs’kky; ,oa ek/;fed f’k{kk funs’kky; vUrxZr fu;r osru ds
Lohd`r in vuq’kaflr osrueku ds in esa ifjofrZr gks tk;sxsaA Hkfo"; esa lsokfuo`fr]
e`R;q ,oa vU; dkj.kksa ls fjDr in vuq’kaflr osrueku ds in esa gh jgsaxasA
6-+ lafo/kku dh 73oha ,oa 74 oha la’kks/ku ds vkyksd esa ftyk ifj"kn@uxj fudk;ksa@
iapk;r lfefr;ksa@ iapk;rksa dh Hkwfedk dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krsa gq, bu iapk;rh jkt
laLFkkvksa ds ek/;e ls izf’kf{kr@ vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed] mPp ek/;fed
f’k{kdksa ,oa iqLrdky;k/;{kksa dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA
izf'kf{kr@ vizf’kf{kr izkjafHkd] ek/;fed ] mPPk ek/;fed f’k{kdksa ,oa
iqLrdky;k/;{kksa ds laok’krZ vUrxZr lsok fujUrjrk] ,sfPNd LFkkukUrj.k]
lsokdkyhu izf’k{k.k] izksUufr dk volj] vuq’kklfud izkf/kdkj ,oa vU; lsok 'kÙkksaZ
ds fu/kkZj.k gsrq ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k tk;sxkA foÙk foHkkx] f’k{kk foHkkx]
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
24/92
lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx] uxj fodkl foHkkx] iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds iz/kku
lfpo@lfpo ,oa iz/kku vij egkf/koDrk bl lfefr ds lnL; jgsaxsaA ;g lfefr
foLr`r tkWp dj rhu ekg ds vUnj viuh vuq’kalk ljdkj dks lefiZr djsaxhA
7-+ ladYi ds fdlh fcUnq ij foHksn gksus dh fLFkfr esa ,rn~ laca/kh iwoZ fuxZr ewy
vkns’kksa@ifji=ksa vkfn dk voyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gS vFkok vko’;rkuqlkj foÙk
foHkkx ls lEidZ dj Li"Vhdj.k izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA
8-+ bl ij ljdkj dk vuqeksnu izkIr gSA
regular pay scale and grade in terms of memo no. 1530 dated 11 th
Auigust, 2015 and they were granted the 7 th pay revision on the
employees.
of the writ petitioners has basically argued that the State cannot
School/ Project Schools only on the ground that they have been
settler on the point of “equal pay for equal work” and the case of
the Apex Court. He submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid
all the judgments on the point of “equal wages for equal work” and
for equal work” laid down a guideline for granting “equal wages
for equal work”. Mr. Shahi has referred to para-42 of the judgment
wherein the Apex Court has examined the claim of higher wages
responsibility.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
26/92
(xvi) The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not
be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is
extended to persons discharging the same duties and
holding the same designation, with the objective of
ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of
promotional avenues (Hukum Chand Gupta case(supra)).
(xvii) Where there is no comparison between one set of
employees of one organization, and another set of
employees of a different organization, there can be no
question of equation of pay-scales, under the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’, even if two organizations have a
common employer. Likewise, if the management and
control of two organizations, is with different entities,
which are independent of one another, the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ would not apply (S.C. Chandra
case (supra), and the National Aluminum Company Limited
case (supra)).
and ad hoc employees are entitled to ‘equal pay for equal work’
below:
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
32/92
State government has adopted two different pay scales for payment
of the teachers appointed prior to 2006 Rules and after 2006 Rules
At the time of evaluation, they are treated at par with and paid the
pay/pay scale. He submitted that the “equal pay for equal work”
‘Niyojit Teacher’.
to various enactment right from 1960 till 2010 to contend that the
the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and
entitled to “equal pay for equal work” and as such the regular
teachers are paid even less than the peon of the school. He has
that teachers are paid even less than the peon in the school and it
Act is still holding the field and the status of the school is still the
same i.e. Nationalised school. He submitted that after the 73rd and
rest scheme of the aforesaid Act is still intact. The writ petitioners
status of secondary teachers right from 1960. In the year 1960, the
Under the said Act the Managing Committee of every High School
teaching employees.
1981. The said act is still in existence. Under Section 3 of the said
time.
letter no. 2605 dated 8th July, 1975 wherein the State Government
the Division Bench of this Court that has decided the issue that
was advanced by Mr. P.K. Shahi, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and
has submitted that after 73rd and 74th amendment, the State
Government has framed rule undere Article 243G and 243W read
with item No. 17 of 11th schedule and item No. 13 of 12th Schedule
are the beneficiary of 2006 Rules and as such they cannot now
that the writ petitioners were appointed under the Rules framed by
instant case and submitted that the employer in the instant case is
not the same and they cannot claim parity with those teachers who
teachers cannot claim parity of pay scale with Dying Cadre. Mr.
(i) In the Harbans Lal Vs. State of H.P.: (1989) 4 SCC 459,
daily-rate employees were denied the claimed benefit, under
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, because they could
not establish, that the duties and responsibilities of the post(s)
held by them, were similar/equivalent to those of the reference
posts, under the State Government.
(ii) In the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union Vs. UOI:
(1991) 1 SCC 619, ad-hoc employees engaged in the Kendras,
were denied pay parity with regular employees working under
the New Delhi Municipal Committee, or the Delhi
Administration, or the Union of India, because of the finding
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
44/92
Singh that the teachers are being paid less than the peon in the
working in the High Schoolin this State are paid better salary than
the fact that Niyojit Teachers are recruited under the scheme of
2006 Rules, their claim of “equal pay for equal work” is not
prepared hereinafter:-
and as such they cannot claim “equal pay for equal work”.
and the learned Advocate General, I find that in the instant writ
14 of the Constitution.
(ii) Whether the Niyojit Teachers are entitled to equal pay for
Rules or not?
nationalized school.
time and again the State Government has framed the condition for
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
48/92
admits the position that teachers appointed under the 2006 Rules
28. Mr. Shahi and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh have submitted
Eligibility Test and they have passed the aforesaid test and as such
Niyojit Teacher.
teachers before framing of 1983 rules under the Act 1981. The
mechanism for selection of teachers’ they were paid the same pay
many words deprecated the denial of ‘equal pay for equal work’ by
same work, the Apex Court held out that action of the State is
31. From the pleadings of the parties I also find that there is
nationalized schools. One cannot ignore the fact that when the
and 1981 Act and 1976 Act (for primary teachers) as discussed
above.
high school, but denied the same to the teachers appointed under
Rules have derived the benefit under the Rules 2006 and as such
power.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
52/92
dignity and one cannot think of leading life without dignity. When
teachers are asked to perform the same duty and treated even
inferior to the peons of the same school their right to live with
dignity is infringed.
different class and they are dying cadre and as such the claim of
the writ petitioners for equal wages for equal work is not
37. I would like to note at this stage that the undisputed fact
that they are performing the same job, share the same
38. The parameters laid down for the test of ‘equal pay for
affidavit does not answer the issue raised by the petitioners and the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in the Jagjit Singh’s case
(supra). The Apex Court has also noted in the said case that
the working also not relevant provided they perform the same
POaragraph 45 the ground for declinig equal pay for equal work,
i.e. (1) if the duty and responsibilities are not similar or equivalent,
sensitive than their counterparts holding referene post but they are
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
56/92
even paid less than the support class-III and IV staff in the same
school.
such not entitled to equal pay for equal work.. In fact, the Apex
Court in the case of Jaipal and others Vs. State of Haryana &
others: AIR 1988 SC 1504 has already answered this issue and as
"Dear
To bring adults in centres is a very difficult
task. This is possible only when our centres are attractive and
adults feel happy to come to the centres and forget all their
worries after coming to the Centre. Instructors should
behave with the adults in such a way that they think him their
friend and guide.The adults should be told that by
hearing, reading the writing, they can know about the
Government Scheme made for their benefit and progress.
Every Instructor is supposed to know about all such
schemes so that they can guide their students. The Adults
should get the guidance from the instructors as to how
they can get loans from various banks and cooperative
Societies. In the coming year we must equip the
instructors with training so that they can fulfil the
responsibility given to them.
In a meeting held at Karnal you were told about the
facilities being given to widows and old persons. You have to
properly propagate the same.
I will be very grateful to you for circulating this
letter to all the instructors and supervisors.
Office Dist. Adult Education officer Karnal. Page No. A-
d-4/3480-659, Karnal dated 13.3.1981.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
58/92
that the petitioners have derived the benefit under 2006 Rules, they
cannot now question the Rules 6 and 8 and claim equal pay for
noted here that the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram
distribution of largess and bounty. The plea of the State that it can
grant higher pay scale to the teachers discharging the same duty
The decision of the State in the matter of grant of lower pay scale
appointed under 2006 Rules cannot be denied the equal pay for
equal work on the ground that they have accepted the condition
judgment where the Apex Court has deprecated such action. The
45. The Apex Court has discussed the principles for pay
find that instant is the fit case where the court should step in and
issue direction for taking decision to grant equal wages for equal
46. I also find that the poor pay scale to the Niyojit Shikshak
boost the moral of man force in service. The better salary and
introspect and the State Government must rise to the situation and
undo the injustice by making payment at par with the other regular
the teachers appointed under 2006 Rules has adversely affected the
teaching in the school. The Court cannot ignore the ground reality.
that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh
pay fixation.
resolution and thus placed the Niyojit teacher in the pay scale of
has been undone by the State Government but with effect from 11th
August, 2015.
Niyojit teacher from fixed salary to prescribed pay scale and grade
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
67/92
pay and thus Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules for all practical purposes
fixed salary the Court has to simply examine whether the Niyojit
Teachers are entitled to the benefit of regular pay and grade with
the teachers appointed under 2006 Rules which was amended from
time to time in the pay scale and pay grade and as such, I find no
writ applications.
power under Rule 243(b) and 243(W) read with item No. 17 of 11 th
schedule and item no. 13 of 12th schedule, 2006 Rules have been
framed but the State Government has not authorized the local self
evident from 2006 Rules itself. The rule was framed by the Human
Raj Department. The resolution granting pay scale and pay band to
lift the veil I find that the State Government is the real player
even less than the class IV employees cannot pass the test of
11th August, 2015 when the State itself rectified its mistake and
ensure equal pay for equal work and make payment of salary at par
time.
pay for equal work, I find that the petitioners are performing the
they are working in the same nationalized school and from the
time to time prescribing the service condition, fixed pay scale and
grant of pay scale and pay band, are indicative of the fact that for
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
71/92
employees.
case of the writ petitioner treating ‘equal pay for equal fork’as
constitutional obligation.
State Government has adopted two different pay scale one for the
Niyojit Shikshak and the other for the teachers known as regular
is unreasonable.
submitted that these teachers are also doing the same evaluation
and they are paid the same remuneration which is paid to the
teachers who are in regular pay scale. Thus, from the materials
petitioners are entitled to the grant of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
the Apex Court has rejected the plea of financial constrain in the
wherein it was pleaded that it is not possible to grant equal pay for
Constraint is not justified for denying the ‘equal pay for equal
work’.
62. I do not find any merit in the submission of the State that
equal work, the Niyojit Teachers are not entitled to equal pay for
any event it cannot be a ground to adopt two pay scale for the
equal pay to Niyojit Teacher in view of the fact that even the class
when the written notes of argument was filed after seven days, we
payment of salary to the teachers less than the class III and IV
model employer.
Setty’s case (supra), we are constrain to hold that the plea of the
the ‘equal pay for equal work’ from the date of their entry in the
deciding the issue that the petitioners are entitled to a direction for
same pay scale and grade pay and work out their entitlement with
and also grant benefit of 7th Pay Revision after fixing their pay
scale from the date of their entry in service applying the principle
following terms:-
(ii) The petitioners are entitled to “equal pay for equal work”
(iii) The respondents are directed to fix their pay scale like
2009, in view of the fact that such grant of relief from the date of
judgment of Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) and I have held that Rule 8
(iv) The respondents are also directed to revise the pay scale
like other regular employees after granting equal pay for equal
months.
to time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
81/92
terms.
different pay scales for teachers who are before us and who are
claim parity with the teachers appointed prior to coming into force
for having two different pay scales for both these class of teachers
are primarily based on the fact that the teachers appointed under
is the case of the State Government that after Rules, 2006 have
Patna High Court CWJC No.21199 of 2013 dt.31-10-2017
82/92
been created, the earlier appointed teachers and their cadres have
nature in the same institute are all dealt with in detail by Brother
regard to the principles of “equal work for equal wages”, but the
‘equal pay for equal work’ again in the case of State of Punjab
Ors.: AIR 2017 SC 4072. In the said case, the State of Punjab
pay scale to Lecturers than masters, even though they were treated
While considering the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and
Rules 2006 form a different class from those who were appointed
prior thereto, and the Employer for these cadres are different, i.e.
under the Constitution. Brother Upadhyay has dealt with this issue
in detail and has found that the teachers appointed under the
High School and +2 Schools after framing of the Rules, 2006 are
appointed prior to and after the Rules, 2006 only because the
the two identical set of teachers, who for all practical purposes,
State and the same can also be seen on a perusal of the provisions
constitutional requirement.
class. Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case
only physical or legal force, but also force arising from the
following manner:
considered view that it does not meet the two cardinal principles
the State of Bihar itself in the case of State of Bihar and others
being in the trained and untrained cadre has been upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, but in this case also,
situate equal treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court says that the
cannot be upheld.
accordingly, allowed.
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 09.10.2017
Uploading Date 31.10.2017
Transmission
Date
Spandey/ Sunil