Summary
Shiksha Karmis appointed in 1998 under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 to teach in municipal schools, and confirmed after probation in 2001, claimed the pay-scale and allied benefits of teachers appointed under the Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, relying on Rule 7 (regular pay-scale after probation), Rule 11 (other conditions of service as for municipal employees) and equal pay for equal work. A Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: on confirmation a Shiksha Karmi is placed in the regular pay-scale of the Municipality as a Shiksha Karmi under Schedule I to Rule 4, not as a municipal teacher, and persons appointed under different Rules by different methods of recruitment cannot claim pay parity.
Issues
- Whether Shiksha Karmis appointed under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 are entitled, on confirmation after probation under Rule 7 or by virtue of Rule 11, to the pay-scale admissible to teachers appointed under the Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, including on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4 (classification and pay-scale per Schedule I), 7 (probation) and 11 (general conditions of service), Chhattisgarh Municipalities Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998Rule 7 means that on completing probation a Shiksha Karmi is confirmed as a Shiksha Karmi and placed in the regular pay-scale of the Municipality for that post, not the pay-scale of municipal teachers; Rule 4 fixes the pay-scales in Schedule I, which are being paid; Rule 11 extends only other conditions of service (leave, superannuation, provident fund, discipline) and does not confer the municipal teachers' scale. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Article 14 (equal pay for equal work), Constitution of IndiaMunicipal teachers and Shiksha Karmis are appointed under different Rules with different methods of selection and recruitment, so a Shiksha Karmi cannot claim parity of pay-scale with municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work (State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh). (¶ 7)
Held
- On a fair reading of Rule 7 of the 1998 Rules, on completion of probation Shiksha Karmis are confirmed as Shiksha Karmis only and placed in the regular pay-scale of the Municipality as Shiksha Karmis, not as municipal teachers who are appointed under the 1968 Rules; their pay is governed by Rule 4 and Schedule I, which is what they are paid. (¶ 7)
- Where two categories are appointed under different Rules with different methods of selection and recruitment, the one cannot claim parity in pay-scale with the other on the principle of equal pay for equal work; Shiksha Karmis governed by the 1998 Rules are entitled to the pay-scales under those Rules only. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment of 01.12.2015 in Writ Appeal No. 538 of 2015 refusing Shiksha Karmis the pay-scale of municipal teachers affirmed. No order as to costs.