Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by 748 petitioners who were working as under matriculate instructors in the Adult Literacy Programme devised by the Government of Haryana. The petitioners sought three reliefs: a mandamus to treat them in service from the date of initial appointment ignoring artificial breaks, regular pay scales equal to primary school teachers in the Education Department of Haryana with consequential benefits and arrears from initial appointment, and a declaration that Adult Education and Non-formal Education was a permanent department and they were regular teachers against sanctioned posts. The petitioners had been receiving a lump sum of Rs.200 per month, had served 5 to 6 years, and claimed they performed the same duties as matriculate instructors who had obtained relief in the earlier decision of Jaipal v. State of Haryana. In Jaipal, the Supreme Court had directed that matriculate instructors were entitled to the same pay scale as squad teachers ignoring breaks in service, effective from September 1, 1985, but rejected regularization because the project was likely to last only till 1990. The petitioners invoked the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 14 and relied upon Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. The court examined the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as a facet of the equality clause under Article 14 and referred to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, which held that the stress is on similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions and that the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay or the plea of discrimination. The court noted that classification based on educational qualifications has always been upheld as reasonable under Articles 14 and 16, citing State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, and P. Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu. It held that the government was not guilty of unlawful discrimination in refusing to extend the pay scale of matriculate instructors to non-matriculate instructors, as educational qualification is a valid basis for classification. The court also observed that the petitioners had not alleged or established that their qualifications, duties and functions were similar to those of squad teachers. Accordingly, the writ petition and connected writ petitions were dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Article 14, Constitution of India - Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, Section 2(h) - Petitioners, under matriculate instructors in Adult Literacy Programme, claimed equal pay with matriculate instructors on ground of same duties; court reiterated that equal pay for equal work is a facet of equality clause under Article 14 but burden lies on claimants to prove similarity of skill, effort and responsibility under similar conditions; petitioners failed to allege or establish similarity of qualifications, duties and functions with squad teachers, hence claim failed - Held that classification based on educational qualifications is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Pay Parity and Classification by Educational Qualifications - Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India - State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao and other precedents relied upon - The court held that prescribing different pay scales for matriculate and non-matriculate employees based on educational qualifications does not violate Articles 14 and 16 even if both groups perform same kind of work; such classification is reasonable and permissible - Held that the government's refusal to extend matriculate instructors' pay scale to non-matriculate instructors was not unlawful discrimination (Paras 2-4). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus and Regularisation - Article 32, Constitution of India - The petitioners also sought regularisation and declaration that Adult Education and Non-formal Education was a permanent department; court dismissed the writ petition without discussing these reliefs separately because primary claim of equal pay failed and regularization was already rejected in Jaipal due to temporary nature of project - Held that writ petition fails and is dismissed with no costs (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-matriculate instructors under Adult Literacy Programme are entitled to same pay scale as matriculate instructors/squad teachers under the principle of equal pay for equal work, and whether classification based on educational qualifications violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ Petition (C) No.584 of 1989 and connected writ petitions dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- equal pay for equal work is a facet of Article 14 of Constitution of India
- burden lies on petitioners to establish similarity of skill
- effort and responsibility under similar conditions
- classification on basis of educational qualifications is reasonable and permissible under Articles 14 and 16
- distinction between matriculate and non-matriculate instructors is not unlawful discrimination
