9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the State Government of Punjab. After the State of Himachal Pradesh was formed, the School received grant-in-aid from the Government of Himachal Pradesh during the years 1967 to 1976. From the year 1977-1978, the School has not been receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the teachers of the School are being paid less than the teachers of Government schools and Government aided schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Not satisfied with their salary and allowances, some of the teachers of the School filed a Writ Petition, CWP No. 1038 of 1996, in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for a direction to pay the salary and allowances at par with the teachers of Government schools and Government-aided schools and by judgment dated 11.10.2004 the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the writ Petitioners salary and allowances at par with their counter-parts working in the Government schools from the dates they were entitled to and at the rates admissible from time to time. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Respondent Nos. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners that the School, which had been receiving grant-in-aid till 1977-1978, could not of its own volition stop to receive grant-in-aid and rightly directed the School to pay to the Appellants salary and allowances at par with their counter-parts working in the Government schools. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge after taking an erroneous view in the impugned judgment that the School was under no obligation to have accepted the grant-in-aid which would have led to diminution of its rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has also sustained the contention of the School that the teachers of private recognized schools had no right to claim salary equal to that of their counter-parts working in Government schools and Government aided schools. He submitted that Rule 45-Q of the Grant-in-Aid Rules of the State of Himachal Pradesh provides that management shall introduce such scales of pay and allowances for teachers and other staff members as prescribed by the Government for corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the School is provisionally affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and the conditions of provisional affiliation of schools prescribed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations stipulate in Clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances and other benefits of the staff of the school must be comparable to that prescribed by the State Department of Education. He referred to the report of the Education Commission 1954-66 to the Ministry of Education, Government of India, recommending that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as government, local bodies or private managements should be the same and this principle of parity should be adopted forthwith. He submitted that Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the 2009 Act') provides that the salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed. He referred to Section 38(2)(l) of the 2009 Act which provides that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service of teachers and other employees of the Frank Anthony Public School, New Delhi, which was a private unaided minority institution, compared very unfavourably with those of their counterparts of the Delhi Administration Schools and the Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association sought equalization of their pay-scales and conditions of service with those of teachers and employees of Government schools. Sections 8 to 11 of the Delhi School Education Act dealt with the terms and conditions of service of employees of recognized private schools. Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act provided that the scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of the recognized private schools shall not be less than those of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate authority. Section 12 of the Delhi School Education Act, however, provided that the provisions of Sections 8 to 11 including Section 10 were not applicable to unaided minority institutions. The case of teachers of Frank Anthony Public School was that if Sections 8 to 11 were made applicable to them, they would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government schools and this Court held that in the absence of statutory provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty. But in the present case, there was no statutory provision requiring a private unaided school to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of Government schools and therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions. 12. In K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr. (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, executive instructions were issued by the Government that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
