State of Bihar & Ors. v. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors.

33. The State also placed on record, increases in emoluments granted to Niyojit Teachers at various stages, as under:- Increases in Salary of Elementary Niyojit Teachers (Trained) – At a Glance Description Initial fixed Salary per Month (in rs.) Present Gross Salary per Month* (In Rs.) Increase in Amount of Salary (In Rs.) % Increase Remarks Recruited in Shiksha Mitra (Trained) 1500 25564 24064 1604 Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.07.2015 & increment of

2.57 times in the basic pay w.e.f. 01.04.2017 as per recommendat 2006 – Panchayat/ Prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak 5000 24843 1984[3] 397 (Trained) ion of 7th Pay Commission 2010 – Panchayat /Prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak (Trained) 7000 24134 17134 245 2013 – Panchayat/ Prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak (Trained) 10000 22812 12812 128 *Note – Gross Salary includes Dearness Allowances (DA), House Rent Allowances (HRA) & Medical Allowances. After proposed enhancement of salary by 20%, as per recommendation of three persons committee constituted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Description Present Basic Revised Basic ** DA (7%) HRA Medical Proposed Gross Salary Recruited in 2003 – Shiksha Mitra (Trained) 22130 26590 1861 1064 1000 30515.00 Recruited in 2006 – Panchayat/prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak (Trained) 21480 25810 1807 1032 1000 29649 Recruited in 2010 – panchayat/Prakhand/ (Trained) 20850 25050 1754 1002 1000 28806 Recruited in 2013 – panchayat/Prakhand/ (Trained) 19650 23610 1653 944 1000 27207 **Note – As per recommendation of three persons committee constituted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, those Niyojit teachers, who pass the special examination, would be covered under the upgraded pay structure, as per the category mentioned as against their designation in the proposed pay-matrix, with an increment of 20% in their pay of the pre-upgraded scale, which are being paid w.e.f. 01.01.2016.”

34. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, advanced submissions on behalf of Union of India. It was submitted that though the teachers appointed prior to 2006 and Niyojit Teachers were working in the same schools and carrying on similar functions, they formed separate cadres and came from different streams. The learned Attorney General relied upon decisions of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 and in Zabar Singh and others vs. the State of Haryana and others29 and more particularly paragraphs 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 42 of said decision. According to the learned Attorney General, if there are two different or dissimilar groups there can be disparity. He submitted that for employees of the State Government it was a matter of status while Niyojit Teachers were recruited through completely different source. In his submission for doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” to be invoked there has to be wholesale identicality and if there be any distinction in matters including mode of recruitment, the doctrine could not be made applicable. He also relied upon decisions of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs. 28 1963 Suppl. 2 SCR 169

Union of India & Ors.30 and Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others31, State of Haryana and others vs. Jasmer Singh and others32, State of U.P. and others vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh[9], Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another vs. Manoj K Mohanty33, Government of W. B. vs. Tarun K. Roy and others34, State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and Others[4] and S.C. Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others11. It was submitted by him that the spread of education as was sought to be achieved in terms of the mandate of the RTE Act required the resources of the State to be utilised to the maximum and in such executive functions and policy matters the Court ought not to interfere. He relied upon decision of this Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited35 and also invited attention to paragraphs 23 onwards from the affidavit of the Union of India as well as the estimation of additional financial burden as quoted hereinabove. It was submitted that the direction passed by the High Court would result in complete budgetary mismatch and tremendous burden on the State.

35. In response to certain questions raised by the Court during the course of hearing, the learned Attorney General submitted that education being a concurrent list topic, the recruitment and other service conditions of teachers including the matters concerning salary and pay fixation were within the domain of the concerned State Government; that the provisions of the Act did not prescribe the percentage share of grant-in-aid by Central Government and that there was no obligation on part of the Central Government to provide 60% of the State’s education budget or estimates; that no funds were sought by the State of Bihar to address the issues of disparity in salary of teachers and that State of Bihar was getting second highest funds under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. With respect to applicability of Rule 20(3) of 2010 Rules, the learned Attorney General submitted that said Rule was applicable only to Union Territories without Legislatures, Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and the States and Union Territories with Legislatures were expected to have their own Rules and State of Bihar had published its own set of Rules in 2011.

36. The submissions on behalf of Niyojit Teachers and their organizations who appeared as respondents and intervenors were led by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Bihar Rajya Prarambhik Shikshak Sangh. The submissions of the other learned counsel who followed him are dealt with in the order that they appeared and argued. It was submitted by Mr. Sibal:-

(i) Niyojit Teachers were working in same schools, the management and control of which, was taken over by the State. The Niyojit Teachers were imparting education in same schools and discharging same functions as were being discharged by the Government Teachers.

(ii) RTE Act contemplated schools owned by the appropriate Government and those which are owned by the local authorities. In the present case all the schools in question were owned by the State.

(iii) Under Section 6 of the RTE Act the appropriate Government was obliged to carry out the provisions of the Act within a period of three years.

(iv) Section 7 of the RTE Act put the responsibility on the Central Government as well as the State Government concurrently for carrying out the provisions of the Act.

(v) The Union Government had actually collected Education Cess and as such the budgetary constraints could never be an argument to defeat the rights of Niyojit Teachers.

(vi) As a matter of law, financial difficulty would be no ground to oppose the rightful demands of Niyojit Teachers for equal pay for equal work which has always been held to be a constitutional obligation.

(vii) In fact, the obligation to raise money was on the State and it cannot be heard to raise a plea of budgetary constraint.

(viii) Rule 7 of 2010 Rules obliged the Central Government to prepare annual estimates of capital and recurring expenditure for carrying out the provisions of the Act for a period of 5 years. Raising of resources was integral to the functioning of and carrying out the obligations under the RTE Act. He distinguished the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for State of Bihar and relied upon decisions of this Court in Dhirendra Chamoli and Another vs. State of U.P36., Bhagwan Dass and others vs. State of Haryana and others37, Jaipal and others. vs. State of Haryana and others[3], State of Punjab & others. vs. Jagjit Singh and others.2. He submitted that education has always been at the core and of immense importance for advancement of a society and the State having failed to discharge its duty in ensuring non-discriminatory treatment to its teachers, the Court may set to malaise right. He submitted that the drift of the submissions advanced by the State as well as the Union of India would mean that there ought not to be cadre of quality teachers.

37. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate appeared for certain associations of teachers and submitted that it was not open to the State to plead and argue financial burden or difficulty in carrying out responsibility enjoined by the provisions of the constitution and particularly Article 21A of the Constitution. It was his submission that effectively Niyojit Teachers were made to carry the burden and pay for the constitutional goals which the States was obliged to achieve. He emphasized that nature of responsibility, qualifications, experience and duties discharged by Niyojit Teachers were at par with the Government Teachers that both the categories were discharging their functions and imparting education in same schools and as such there could be no distinction. He relied upon decisions of this Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India and others.38, Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and Another39, Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association vs. State of Karnataka and Others40, Baseeruddin M. Madari and others. vs. State of Karnataka and Others41, State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others42

38. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Advocate submitted that Article 21A was inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act on 12th December, 2002 but came into force on 01.04.2010. After enactment of the RTE Act on 26.08.2009, two notifications were issued on 16.02.2010. Under the first notification, the provisions of Article 21A were directed to come into force on 01.04.2010 while under the second notification the provisions of the RTE Act were directed to come into force on 01.04.2010. These developments indicate that though the Constitutional Amendment Act was passed in the year 2002, period of almost 8 years was given to the States to gear themselves up and cope up with the obligations which were to be discharged in terms of Article 21A read with the provisions of RTE Act. He emphasised that the idea of free and compulsory education first germinated in the decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others43, which was later recommended in 165th Law Commission Report. The States thus had enough time at their disposal to equip themselves adequately to cope up with the obligations as aforesaid.

He further submitted that under various enactments namely National Food Security Act, 2013, Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. Child and Adolescent Labour (Prevention and Regulation) Act, 1986, separate funds are constituted and if budgetary constraints is the reason, a mandamus on the lines that was issued by this Court in M.C. Mehta vs. State of T.N. and others44, could be issued. He also invited attention of the Court to the report of the Controller and Auditor General which indicated that substantial sums were collected as primary education cess and higher and secondary education cess. The information in that behalf available in para 2.3.[3] of the Report of CAG for the year 2016-17 was as under: “2.3.[3] Secondary and Higher Education Cess The Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) was introduced in the Finance Act, 2007, to fulfil the commitment of Secondary and Higher Education. Scrutiny of the Union Finance Accounts for the period 2006-07 to 2016-17 revealed that a total collection of SHEC of 83,497 ₹ core has been made and is being credited in the CFI without creating any reserve fund in Public Account. Unlike the creation of Prarambhik Siksha Kosh in the case of primary/elementary education cess, for the SHEC neither a Fund was designated to deposit the proceeds of SHEC nor were schemes identified on which the cess proceeds were to be spent. Consequently, the commitment of furthering Secondary and Higher Education Cess as envisaged in the Finance Act was not transparently ascertainable. 44 (1996) 6 SCC 756 para 29 The matter of non-creation of Fund and non-dentification of schemes was raised in previous years’ Report but the trend is persistent.” He also relied upon decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others45 (para 55).

39. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the content of Right under Article 21A of the Constitution would be meaningless unless the role of a teacher was not considered in proper perspective. For a child to be given good quality education, the teachers must be well qualified and ensured decent wages. In his submission that would be the true import of Rule 20(3) of 2010 Rules and it was the responsibility of a State to garner resources. He relied upon extracts from a book46 and particularly paragraphs 5 and 6 captioned “Public Expenditure and Education Policy”. The relevant extract which was relied upon was:- “While the development of low-cost schooling facilities has helped to expand the reach of elementary education in spite of widespread budgetary crises at the state level, gaping inadequacies remain (both in quantitative and qualitative terms) in the schooling infrastructure, as the findings mentioned in the preceding section indicate. Further, the trend towards increasing reliance on second-track education facilities has some troubling features. At least three serious issues arise in this context, related respectively to quality, equity and sustainability. The quality issue is concerned with the fact that teacher qualifications and infrastructural facilities are often poorer in second-track schooling facilities than in regular schools. In

46 [“India – Development and Participation” by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen] some cases there are also compensating features, especially greater accountability (e.g. due to better work incentives or closer community involvement), but the question remains whether these facilities can really be expected to deliver education of acceptable quality. The equity issue follows from that concern: if ‘second-track’ means ‘second-rate’, the expansion of alternative schooling facilities involves a real danger of diluting the right of underprivileged children to quality education. While these facilities might help them in the short term, this might be done at the risk of perpetuating the deep inequities of India’s schooling system, whereby children of different social backgrounds have vastly different educational opportunities (not only in terms of the divide between government and private schools but now also within the framework of government schools.”

40. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate placed comparative chart of salary and emoluments drawn by Niyojit Teachers as against Government Teachers at various levels. She submitted that the introduction of Article 21A in the Constitution was not an exercise done overnight but considerable thought process had gone into, in making such Right a reality. Even after the introduction of Article 21A, substantial period of eight years was afforded to the States to equip themselves on every front. In her submission, Sections 23 and 25 of the Act ensure qualitative and quantitative aspects and if both the aspects are taken together it would be inevitable that the teachers must be in adequate numbers and also must have decent wages. According to her, there were three sets of guarantees available to Niyojit Teachers. First, under Article 41 of the Constitution, the second under Article 14 of the Constitution and the third under the provisions of the RTE Act, on the basis of which the Niyojit Teachers could rightfully claim parity in salary and emoluments. She relied upon the Report of the Finance Commission47, the relevant portion being:- “12.19… ….The MHRD estimations have assumed a minimum salary of Rs.5000 per month for primary teachers and Rs.7000 per month for upper primary teachers. There is no uniform pattern in the manner of appointment and pay scales of SSA teachers across states. In some states such teachers are appointed by the State Government on regular pay scales, whereas in many others, such teachers are appointed by local governments on local body pay scales or on contract. The implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) would, in any event, create an upward pressure on teachers’ salaries, whatever the mode of appointment. We have, therefore, assumed an increase of 30 per cent over the base year, in view of the fact that the bulk of these teachers are located in rural areas. We have also provided for an annual increase of 6% on these salaries, in conformity with our assumption of the post-CPC yearly increase in salaries of government servants. Similarly, while SSA does not provide for any annual increase in the quantum of funds on account of inflation, we have provided for an annual increase of 5 per cent across all non-salary components of the scheme.

12.20 The SSA began with a matching fund requirement of 15 per cent from states in 2001-02. Till 2006-07, the matching fund requirement was 25 per cent. It has increased progressively to 35 per cent in 2007-08 and 2008-09 and to 40 per cent in 2009-10. It is expected to go up to 45 per cent in 2010-11 and to 50 per cent in 2011-12, the terminal year of the Eleventh Five Year Plan. We assume that the same ratio will continue in the 47 13th Finance Commission, for 2010-15 published in 2009 remaining years of the award period. Various states have expressed difficulties in providing this matching share, especially since the size of their annual plans has increased over the years.

12.21 We are of the view that, in the given circumstances augmenting the resources of the states to cater to this need will be the most appropriate way to provide grants for the elementary education sector. This will also provide some fiscal space to the states to meet a part of the additional resources required to implement the RTE Act. We have also considered the fact that given the resource scarcity faced by the states as a result of the economic slowdown, several states have not been able to provide for their share of 40 per cent in 2009-10. In fact, we estimate that due to the adverse fallout of the economic downturn, the states may not be able to provide more than 35 per cent from their resources over the current year and the next year. Hence, we recommend for the award period, a grant of 15 per cent of the estimated SSA expenditure of each state. This amount will cover the difference between the targeted state share of 50 per cent by the terminal year of the Eleventh Plan and the contribution required to be made in 2008-09, i.e. 35 per cent of the individual states’ SSA share.

12.22 The north-eastern states are required to provide only 10 per cent from their resources as their share for SSA. However, as the MHRD has pointed out in a supplementary memorandum, several of these states have not been able to provide even this amount, leading to slowdown in implementation of SSA. In order to alleviate the fiscal constraints of these states we recommend a grant amounting to the difference between the average amount contributed by each state in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the amount they need to contribute (on the basis of a 10 per cent share) in each of the five years of the award period, subject to a minimum of Rs.[5] crore per year. The requirement of the north-eastern states, calculated on this basis, is Rs.367 crore over a period of five years.

12.23 The recommended grant for elementary education for all these states, in aggregate, works out to Rs.24,068 crore. The state-wise and year wise allocations are given in Annex 12.1. In order to ensure that these grants do not substitute for the current expenditure of states, we stipulate that the expenditure (plan + non plan) under elementary education, i.e. major head 2202, sub-major head-01, exclusive of the grants recommended herein, should grow by at least 8 per cent, the assumed growth rate in our projections of the non-salary component of the social sector during the award period, annually, during 2010-15.” Ms. Makhija then submitted that there had been three categories of teachers in the State, first category being that of regular teachers who are getting salary and emoluments at government pay scale. The second category was that of Shiksha Mitras who were inducted under Central Schemes since 2002. The third category of teachers are those who were inducted in terms of 2006 Rules. The second category as stated above, now stands merged in the last category and are collectively known as Niyojit Teachers. She relied upon decisions in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others48, State of U.P. and Others vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Others49, Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Others50, E. P Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another51.

51 (1974) 4 SCC 3 para 85 Ms. Makhija also submitted that the distinction drawn by the learned Attorney General was artificial and without any nexus to the object. She further submitted that the State cannot let disparity continue and perpetuate inequality.

41. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate stressed on the content of the right under Article 21A and submitted that the emphasis must be on good quality education. He submitted that under Section 26 of the RTE Act, the vacancy position of teachers could not be more than 10% and as such the teachers had to be appointed in adequate numbers to match the Pupil-Teacher ratio as prescribed and it would not be proper on part of the State to put up an excuse of budgetary constraints. He further stated that under Section 28 of the Act, a teacher would not be allowed to engage himself in private teaching activity. He relied upon State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others[2], Hussainara Khatoon and Others (IV) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna52, Khatri and Others (II) vs. State of Bihar and Others53, Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India and Others38 and Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and 52 (1980) 1 SCC 98 para 10 53 (1981) 1 SCC 627 para 5 Others54. Lastly, he urged that the right under Article 21A ought to be made meaningful.

42. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of Bihar Madhyamik Shikshan Sangh representing those teaching classes IX onwards. According to him, the total liability in terms of the decision rendered by the High Court in the present matter was in the range or Rs.9283.69 Crores out of which the share allocable to the Central Government would be Rs.4599.07 crores and that of the State Government would be Rs.4684.63 crores. In a Note presented by him, the aspect that Niyojit Teachers were performing same/similar duties and responsibilities was highlighted as under:- “i) It is admitted fact that these Niyojit teachers are discharging same/similar duty and responsibility as discharged by the Regular teachers of Pre-2006 Rules. The impugned order has dealt it in detail and returned important finding on this issue in favour of these teachers at more than one place. ii) These Niyojit teachers are imparting education to the same students, with same syllabus in the same school apart form doing the same evaluation work in secondary and +2 examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. At the time of evaluation, they are treated at par with and paid the same remuneration like the teachers appointed prior to 2006 Rules. iii) Moreover, these Niyojit teachers are also engaged by the State like Regular teachers in duties like duty for preparation of census (economic survey), Election duty 54 (2012) 6 SCC 502 paras 137 to 144 from preparation of voter list till counting of votes. Interestingly, while informing the Election Commission with regard to deploying these teachers on election duty, the State treats these Niyojit teachers as Regular teachers. iv) These teachers like regular teachers are also engaged in imparting Special training namely ‘Diploma in Elementary Training’ provided by National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Board, under Union of India, which is an on-going programme, wherein in a selected school of each district, Study Centre is opened to impart training. In these programmes these Niyojit teachers work as Coordinator, Assistant Co-ordinator, resource persons and Supervisors. Importantly, sometimes, when the minimum required qualification like MA/M.SC/B.Ed./M.Ed. is not found in the regular teacher, then Niyojit teachers with such qualifications are made Co-ordinator in place of regular teachers in that Study Centre. v) Many of these Niyojit teachers are chosen as Master Trainers, who are responsible for imparting training to both category of teachers i.e. Niyojit Teachers and Regular Teachers. Pertinently, this training is conducted/organised by State Council of Educational Research and Training, Government of Bihar (SCERT similar to NCERT). vi) Furthermore, such in-service training is part of a continuous process which includes preparation of Syllabus, Curriculum and innovative teaching method as well as these Niyojit teachers are also given responsibility of writing text books for students form class I to class XII under the command of SCERT. vii) These Niyojit teachers are also engaged in setting of question papers, moderating, evaluating the answer sheets etc., at par with the regular teachers on equal remuneration. viii) Responsibility of Acting Principals in substantial number of the Secondary and Higher Secondary schools are performed by these Niyojit teachers. Kindly see list of secondary and higher secondary schools wherein these Niyojit teachers are working as Acting Principal, however, receiving the salary of Niyojit teachers.” It was his submission that the cases decided by this Court on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution consistently show that if functionally the duties performed by the class seeking parity are same or identical, unless required qualifications were higher, the equality doctrine must apply and in such cases the source of employment would be irrelevant. He also relied upon the statistics to show that as many as 1459 Niyojit Teachers were acting as Head Masters in Higher Secondary Schools in the State. By way of an example, he further submitted details from Anugrah Kanya S.S.S, Gaya in which six Government Teachers and three non-teaching staff were on the roles while 22 Niyojit Teachers were working in the same school. All Government Teachers and the non-teaching staff were drawing pay higher than what was paid to each of those Niyojit Teachers. He also submitted that with effect from 3rd July, 2012, under the Rules framed by State of Bihar, it was obligatory for every teacher teaching classes IX onwards to have TET qualification and all Niyojit Teachers teaching such classes were equipped with said qualification. Responding to the submission that the category of Government Teachers who was taken to be a dying or finishing cadre, he submitted that no such policy was discernible from any statutory provision. He relied upon decisions of this Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others48 and Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others55.

43. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate also representing teachers teaching classes IX onwards submitted that two issues had been raised on behalf of the State whether there could be equality with a dying or vanishing cadre and whether on the grounds of financial constraints the State was justified in not affording same pay and emoluments to Niyojit Teachers. He reiterated that both the categories of teachers were performing same or similar functions. He relied upon an Article “Perceptions on Getting Children to Schools – Before and After RTE Act”56.

44. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of Secondary and Higher Secondary teachers teaching classes IXth onwards. He also stressed the point that there was complete functional equality in every respect as regards duties and responsibilities between Government Teachers on one hand and Niyojit Teachers on the other. It was his submission that though under 2006 Rules, Panchayats and Municipal 55 (2013) 4 SCC 152 para 5 and 13 56 By Shantha Sinha, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad Bodies were entrusted with the task of selecting teachers, in reality the Committees constituted for the purpose comprised of all government officials and the State Government was in real and effective control of the situation. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association vs. Bihar Education Service Association and others57 particularly on para 50.

45. Shri Ananda Nandan, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of Niyojit Teachers who were appointed after 2012. It was submitted by him that such teachers who were duly qualified and had passed TET examination alone be considered to be entitled to parity with Government Teachers and those who did not have the requisite qualifications and had not passed TET examination ought not to be afforded same treatment. In his submission that would be the true import of the idea of making quality education available to the children in terms of the RTE Act. He also relied upon decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others58.

46. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of some primary school teachers and Parivartankaari Teachers Maha Sangh. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Shri Vardichand and others59, Secretary and Mahatama Gandhi Mission and another vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and others60 (paragraphs 82 to 90 and 95).

47. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Advocate appearing for some of the primary teachers submitted that those teachers having TET qualifications, were regularly selected by local authorities and though, the method of recruitment may be different, they were doing the same work as was being discharged by other Government Teachers. Their qualifications were identical and in terms of mandate of Rule 20(3) of 2010 Rules, they were entitled to pay and allowances at par with the Government Teachers.

48. Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for certain secondary and primary teachers submitted that the statutory provisions including 2006 Rules clearly showed the all-pervasive role of the State Government which had created these artificial distinctions and categories and the Panchayats were simply implementing what the State had decided. In his submission the basic issues were whether there could be any discretion unto the State in matters concerning constitutional mandate and whether financial constraints could be taken as a valid excuse. He reiterated the submission that under Section 7 of the RTE Act there was a concurrent financial responsibility on the State Government as well as the Central Government. Adverting to the draft Notes which were placed before the Cabinet on 25.06.2006, he submitted that the entire mechanics was about financial arrangement and there was nothing such as financial constraints upon the State. He relied upon decisions of this Court in Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka and others61, Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others43 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others62

49. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the primary teachers submitted that as it is the income of a teacher has always been a limited one and the attempt on part of the State was to restrict it further. Relying on Workmen represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett. & Co. Limited and another63 it was submitted that the teachers must be ensured living wages and that the Niyojit Teachers were entitled to the salary and emoluments as were made available to Government Teachers. He also relied upon decisions of this Court in

Municipal Council, Ratlam vs. Shri Vardichand and others59 and Chandigarh Administration and others vs. Rajni Vali and others64.

50. Mr. B.P. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of certain teachers seeking impleadment and relied upon the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others45 (para 55), while Mr. V.N. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for some primary and secondary teachers as well as librarians relied upon a decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another65 to submit that there ought to be reasonableness in every action of the State. Adopting the submissions made by all the other learned counsel, it was submitted by them that Niyojit Teachers were entitled to same salaries and emoluments as were given to Government Teachers.

51. In rejoinder, it was submitted by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate that a conscious decision was taken not to make any further appointments in the cadre of Government Teachers and but for one-time appointment which was done pursuant to orders passed by the High Court and this Court, the strength of Government Teachers would have been considerably lower. The State could as well have abolished all the posts held by Government Teachers after giving them requisite compensation and in the process could have ensured one single cadre of Niyojit Teachers. The attempt to compare a huge body of Niyojit Teachers which was more than 4.50 lakhs and seek parity with a group which was a dying or vanishing cadre was not correct. He submitted that there was no basis to claim that the quality of education would be compromised if Niyojit Teachers were not paid same salary as was given to Government Teachers. The decisions of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 and in Zabar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others29, S.C. Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others11, State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh[4] and State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and others66 were heavily relied upon by Mr. Dwivedi. It was submitted that the decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others[2] did not notice the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 and in Zabar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others29. It was submitted that the decision in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 had clearly laid down that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was not deducible from Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance was also placed on Section 2(n) of the RTE Act and the expression ‘controlled by the appropriate government or a local body’ to submit that it was sufficient indication that new kind of service could be put in place by the appropriate government. He submitted that the Right under Article 21A of the Constitution was child-centric and a claim could not be based by the Niyojit Teachers on the basis of such Right to claim parity as was sought to be done. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in All India Bank Employees’ Association vs. National Industrial Tribunal and others67, Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and another39.

52. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate, in rejoinder, relied upon the judgment of Constitution Bench of this Court in Navtej Singh Johar and others vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice68 and paragraphs 95, 96, 104, 110, 118 and 119 thereof. In his submission, progressive realisation of rights would require certain amount of balancing and adjustment. If the matter was to be considered from the standpoint of child, the school system ought to be of such order which helps realisation of such Right but, at the same time there ought not to be any negative impact on the dignity of any other individual. Considering these two ideas, if the endeavour adopted by the State was to subserve goals set by Article 21A, the attempts in that behalf would be perfectly constitutional as long as dignity of any other individual was not 67 (1962) 3 SCR 269 = AIR 1962 SC 171 compromised. According to him, the two competing visions which were pressed into service in the present matter were (i) on behalf of Niyojit Teachers which visualised perspective from the standpoint of individual teachers which was “me first” approach, whereas, what the State was emphasising was community right and to achieve and to subserve the societal needs which could be categorised as “we first” approach. Both could be valid visions but while considering which choice would be the most appropriate one, it would require policy decisions which, by very nature could be complex. The policy decisions on the point would be completely linked to social issues and economy and health of the society. These issues as well as vision in that behalf ought to be left to the State. He further submitted that the various factual details presented by the State would show great impact of its policies and the tremendous strides the State had undertaken in that behalf. He relied upon decisions of this Court in Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj and others vs. The State of Gujarat and others69 (para 31), Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and others vs. Union of India and others70 (para 33) and Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and others71.

53. With the permission of the Court, Mr. Sibal, Mr. Sundaram, Mr. Vijay Hansaria and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocates responded to the submissions made in rejoinder. It was submitted that the very premise that the schools were managed by local authorities was wrong; they were taken over and owned by the State. It was submitted that the concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was a fundamental doctrine though may not strictly be a Fundamental Right. Mr. Hansaria submitted a list of at least 40 cases where doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was adopted without noticing the decisions of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 and in Zabar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others29. It was also submitted that as against the funds which were made available for various Central Schemes, about Rs.1802 crores were lying unspent and as such the budgetary constraints could not be an argument. By extending schools and educational facilities to every nook and corner of the State or in every neighbourhood the State was not doing any charity but was discharging its constitutional obligations and as such, budgetary constraints could never be a ground.

54. Having heard the learned counsel extensively, who took us through all the relevant material on record and placed before us various contours of the issues before us, the basic questions that arise for our consideration are:a) Whether the Niyojit Teachers are right in their submission that they are entitled to and were rightly granted ‘equal pay for equal work’; and b) Whether the State is justified in its approach and is right in claiming that the distinction made by it was correct and fair. These questions, according to us, go to the root of the matter. While answering these questions, we may also consider various facets to the issues as presented by various counsel, including the effect of the provisions of the RTE Act.

55. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State, the matter has to be seen in the backdrop of what the State was confronted with around the year 2001-2002 and what it has, over the last few years, been able to achieve as a result of steps taken by the State including the appointment of Niyojit Teachers and creation of a separate cadre of Niyojit Teachers. According to the State, on one hand it had decided to let the original cadre of Government Teachers to be a cadre without any fresh appointments and thus let it be a dying or vanishing cadre, while on the other hand it had decided that substantial number of teachers be appointed at Panchayat levels.

56. At the outset we must note that though the 86th Constitution Amendment Act was passed in the year 2002, the Article was brought into force on 1.4.2010 i.e. at least after eight years. It is also a matter of record that the RTE Act which was, all the while in contemplation, was enacted in the year 2009 and was also brought into force on 1.4.2010. The developments in that behalf including the historical background leading to the introduction of Article 21A and the enactment of the RTE Act were dealt with in extenso in paragraphs 441 to 461 in the opinion of Bhandari, J in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India38. We, therefore, have to see how the State had conducted itself and whether the steps taken by the State were in order to discharge its obligations. In the year 2002 itself, Scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was introduced at the Central level. In terms of the Scheme, the facilities of education and infrastructure were required to be spread through the length and breadth of the respective States. The steps taken in that behalf, specially in the present matter, indicate that sometime in 2002 more than one lakh Shiksha Mitras were appointed by the State. These Shiksha Mitras were not part of the regular cadre of Government Teachers, were not appointed through the regular process of selection and their services were engaged on a fixed salary. These Shiksha Mitras, who were outside the regular cadre of teachers, were entrusted with the job of manning schools in the remotest corners of the State. Sometime in 2006, certain decisions were taken by the Cabinet of Ministers, Government of Bihar. The control in respect of appointment of teachers in all nationalized schools and other aspects, which were hithertobefore with the State Government, were given over to various Panchayat Raj institutions. This was in conformity with Articles 243G read with Serial No. 17 of the Eleventh Schedule in respect of Panchayats at the village, intermediate and at district levels and also in terms of Article 243W read with Serial No.13 of the Twelfth Schedule in respect of Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils or Municipal Corporations. The decisions taken by the Cabinet were in accord with the constitutional mandate of enabling Panchayat Raj Systems on one hand while on the other, the decision also raised the number of teachers substantially so that national parameters on student:teacher ratio could be achieved by the State. The statistics placed on record show that about 12% children in the State who were outside the schools had to be brought within the stream of education. The decision discernible from the Cabinet Notes was to achieve these objectives. After the decision of the Cabinet, the idea was translated in an appropriate statutory regime and new set of Rules viz. 2016 Rules were put in place. A decision was taken that there would be no further appointments in the cadre of existing teachers viz. Government Teachers and a completely new cadre of teachers named Niyojit Teachers was created. The erstwhile Shiksha Mitras were absorbed in this new cadre of Niyojit Teacher and fresh employments were made at Panchayat/Block levels so that teachers in sufficient numbers could be appointed. The developments indicate that presently about four lakh such teachers have been appointed and the statistics presented by the State, which are reflected in detail in abovenoted paragraph 31, show the advances made by the State in that behalf. It was submitted that the State could thus achieve substantial improvement in the enrolment of students and the results have also seen appreciable rise in literacy rate in the last decade in respect of the State.

57. We are thus having a situation where the decisions taken by the State as submitted on its behalf, were guided by public interest and societal commitment. The idea to achieve spread of education to the maximum level was attained and in the process the State had, to a great extent, tried to meet with the obligations that it was required to discharge under the provisions of Article 21A read with the RTE Act. What has however been projected on behalf of Niyojit Teachers is that while achieving these objectives, the State ought not to have discriminated against the Niyojit Teachers and should have extended fair treatment to them by ensuring ‘equal pay for equal work’. The arguments on behalf of State are that the first objective that had to be accomplished was to have the reach and spread of education to every nook and corner of the State and to satisfy the requirements of having schools and facilities in every neighbourhood as contemplated by the provisions of the RTE Act; and having achieved that objective, the State is now seeking to improve the service conditions and emoluments of the Niyojit Teachers. What therefore emerges is whether the actions on part of the State were justified or whether the Niyojit Teachers are right in their submission that they are entitled to ‘equal pay for equal work’.

58. Before we consider the rival submissions in connection with this issue, it must be mentioned that the cadre of Government Teachers with which parity or equality has been sought is a dying or a vanishing cadre. A conscious decision was taken by the State not to make any appointments in this cadre of Government Teachers and post 2006, with the exception as narrated hereinabove in paragraph 17, all appointments in the State have been in terms of and under the provisions of 2006 Rules. The statistics also show that presently there are about 57,293 elementary teachers in the cadre of Government Teachers and 7,800 Government Teachers at the secondary level which means there are about 66,000 government teachers in the State as against nearly 4 lakh Niyojit Teachers in the State. It is this group of 4 lakhs which is seeking parity with a number which is less than 1/5th and by very nature which is a dying and vanishing cadre. Out of those 66,000 more than 31,000 were those who came to be appointed as one-time exception. Leaving aside that issue, the fact remains that it is a larger body of more than 4 lakhs which is seeking parity with a dying or a vanishing cadre.

59. In order to consider the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’, one of the fundamental aspects to be considered is nature of duties. As was rightly submitted by Mr. Kabil Sibal and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocates, the nature of duties performed by Niyojit Teachers are certainly same or similar to those performed by the Government Teachers. As a matter of fact, both the sets of teachers are teaching in the same school and teaching same syllabus. The pointers placed by Dr. Singhvi in his submission as well as the example given by him evidently show that there is no distinction or difference as regards nature of duties performed and responsibilities discharged by the Niyojit Teachers. Some of the Niyojit Teachers have also been acting as Headmasters. However, the Rules in question viz. 2006 Rules clearly indicate that the method of recruitment of Niyojit Teachers was completely different from the one under which Government Teachers were recruited. The Selection Committee contemplated under the provisions of 2006 Rules comprised of officials at the Panchayat or Block levels. The selection was also at local levels and not through Bihar Public Service Commission or Schools Selection Board. The distinction brought out in that behalf by the State in para 13 of its supplementary counter affidavit filed in the High Court clearly shows the difference in mode of recruitment. It is thus clear that the mode of recruitment and the standards of selection were different but the nature of duties performed by the Niyojit Teachers have been absolutely identical. Could there be a distinction between these two streams of teachers. We may, therefore, at this stage see the development of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and whether it admits of any qualifications or exceptions.

60. In Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs. Union of India72 the Income Tax Officers were divided into two categories and Class-I Income Tax Officers alone were entitled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners. There could be no such direct promotion from amongst officers who were Income Tax Officers Class-II. The submission that this was violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution was rejected. Further submission was that both the categories were doing same kind of work but their pay-scales were different and as such the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ stood violated. While considering said submission, the Constitution Bench stated:-

61. Almost 20 years later, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was accepted by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others31. A Bench of three Judges stated that though the principle of

‘equal pay for equal work’ had not expressly been declared by the Constitution to be a Fundamental Right, it was certainly a constitutional goal. The discussion was as under:- “7. Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union of India ILR (1973) 1 Del 427 and Makhan Singh v. Union of India ILR (1975) 1 Del 227, where reference was made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1139 describing the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article

14. We shall presently point out how the principle, “equal pay for equal work”, is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of lndia AIR 1962 SC 1139 is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them.

8. It is true that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for both men and women” as a directive principle of State Policy. “Equal pay for equal work for both men and women” means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word “socialist” must mean something. Even if it does not mean ‘to each according to his need’, it must at least mean “equal pay for equal work”. “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance” (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled”. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle “equal pay for equal work” is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.

9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the “powers, functions and privileges of a police officer”, their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect.”

62. Post Randhir Singh31, there have been number of decisions rendered by this Court and instead of looking into and considering every single decision on the point, we may consider those decisions which themselves had taken into account all the earlier decisions and then considered if there are any limitations or qualifications to the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

63. In State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others[4] a Bench of three Judges of this Court, speaking through Variava, J. observed as under:- “19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77, Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology (2003) 5 SCC 188 and Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors.”

64. In SC Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others11 Markandey Katju, J. in his concurring opinion observed as under:-

the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).

36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347.

37. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. (2002) 6 SCC 72the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The courts must realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey

65. In Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others12 Singhvi, J. speaking for a Bench of three Judges observed as under:-

doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

95. The ratio of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 was reiterated and applied in several cases— Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh v. CPWD (1986) 1 SCC 639, Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122, Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1990)2 SCC 396 and Jaipal v. State of Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 354 and it was held that even a daily-wage employee who is performing duties similar to regular employees is entitled to the same pay. However, in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 91, Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989)2 SCC 235, V. Markendeya v. State of A.P (1989) 3 SCC 191, Harbans Lal v. State of H.P.(1989) 4 SCC 459, State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union v. Union of India(1991)1 SCC 619, GDA v. Vikram Chaudhary(1995) 5 SCC 210, State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77, State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 633, Union of India v. K.V. Baby (1998) 9 SCC 252, State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu (2003) 1 SCC 250, Utkal University v. Jyotirmayee Nayak (2003) 4 SCC 760, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658, Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura (2004) 1 SCC 119, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh (2007) 6 SCC 207, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara (2007) 5 SCC 326 and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engg. Consultants (India) Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 710, the Court consciously and repeatedly deviated from the ruling of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 and held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. … … …

99. In Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engg. Consultants (India) Ltd (2007) 7 SCC 710 another two-Judge Bench held that simply because some employees of a contractor of the alleged head employer are performing the task or duties similar to the employees of the head employer, it will not entitle such employees to claim parity.

100. As mentioned earlier, the respondents were employed/engaged by the Official Liquidators pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Court under Rule 308 of the 1959 Rules and they are paid salaries and allowances from the company fund. They were neither appointed against sanctioned posts nor were they paid out from the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the mere fact that they were doing work similar to the regular employees of the Offices of the Official Liquidators cannot be treated as sufficient for applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. Any such direction will compel the Government to sanction additional posts in the Offices of the Official Liquidators so as to facilitate payment of salaries and allowances to the company-paid staff in the regular pay scale from the Consolidated Fund of India and in view of our finding that the policy decision taken by the Government of India to reduce the number of posts meant for direct recruitment does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity, it is not possible to entertain the plea of the respondents for payment of salaries and allowances in the regular pay scales and other monetary benefits on a par with regular employees by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.”

66. In State of Punjab and another vs. Surjit Singh and others13 Sinha, J. considered all the relevant decisions on the point and stated as under:-

(1) Mode and manner of selection can be a ground of classification. In S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand(2007) 8 SCC 279 it has been held: (SCC pp. 290-91, paras 27 & 30)

Taxes Department. The learned counsel submitted that this Court lately, although made a distinction between a direction to regularise the employees who had been working for some time, but keeping in view the constitutional mandate contained in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India directed grant of a salary on a scale of pay, particularly in cases where the conduct of the State had been found to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudiced. … … …

17. We must also place on record the fact that in different phases of development of law by this Court, relying on or on the basis of the said principle, a clear cleavage of opinion has emerged. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, this Court liberally applied the said principle without insisting on clear pleadings or proof that the persons similarly situated with others are equal in all respects; of late also; this Court has been speaking in different voices as would be evident from the following. This has been noticed specifically by a Division Bench of this Court in S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand(2007) 8 SCC 279, wherein it was held: (SCC p. 289, para 21)

discussion have finally put the controversy to rest that the persons who claimed the parity should satisfy the court that the conditions are identical and equal and same duties are being discharged by them. Though a number of cases were cited for our consideration but no useful purpose will be served as in Charanjit Singh(2006) 9 SCC 321 all these cases have been reviewed by this Court. More so, when we have already held that the appellants are not the employees of BCCL, there is no question seeking any parity of pay with that of the clerks of BCCL.”

18. Katju, J. in his separate but concurrent judgment opined as under: (S.C. Chandra case (2007) 8 SCC 279, SCC pp. 290 & 293-94, paras 26 & 35)

19. The Bench in S.C. Chandra case (2007) 8 SCC 279 in arriving at the said finding specifically relied upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Charanjit Singh(2006) 9 SCC 321, wherein it was held: (Charanjit Singh case, SCC pp. 329-30 & 334-36, paras 9, 17, 19 &

22) “9. In State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj(2003) 6 SCC 123 it has been held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. It has been held that there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organisations or even in the same organisation. It has been held that this is a concept which requires, for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been held that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into a mathematical formula. It was further held as follows: (SCC p. 127, para 11) ‘11. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination. No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is an abstract one.’ * * *

17. In Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana(1987) 4 SCC 634 this Court held that if the duties and functions of the temporary appointees and regular employees are similar, there cannot be discrimination in pay merely on the ground of difference in modes of selection. It was held that the burden of proving similarity in the nature of work was on the aggrieved worker. We are unable to agree with the view that there cannot be discrimination in pay on the ground of differences in modes of selection. As has been correctly laid down in Jasmer Singh case (1996) 11 SCC 77 persons selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority can be granted a higher pay scale as they have been evaluated by the competent authority and in such cases payment of a higher pay scale cannot be challenged. Jasmer Singh case has been noted with approval in Tarun K. Roy case (2004) 1 SC 347.

19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in Jasmer Singh (1996) 1 SC 77, Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology (2003) 5 SCC 188 and Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors. * * *

22. One other fact which must be noted is that Civil Appeals Nos. 6648, 6647, 6572 and 6570 of 2002 do not deal with casual or daily-rated workers. These are cases of persons employed on contract. To such persons the principle of equal pay for equal work has no application. The Full Bench judgment dealt only with daily-rated and casual workers. Where a person is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms and conditions of service. In State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar(1997) 3 SCC 633 persons employed on contract basis claimed equal pay as regular workers on the footing that their posts were interchangeable. It was held that these persons had no right to the regular posts until they are duly selected and appointed. It was held that they were not entitled to the same pay as regular employees by claiming that they are discharging the same duties. It was held that the very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make appointment in accordance with the rules. It was held that the respondents had not been recruited in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment.” … … …

24. It is no longer in doubt or dispute that grant of the benefit of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” depends upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity. This Court, even recently, in Union of India v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, categorically held as under: (SCC pp. 376-77, paras 19 & 24)

services to be placed on deputation. She opted to stay in the government service as a surplus. She was placed in list as Librarian in National Gallery of Modern Art. She was designated as Assistant Librarian and Information Assistant. Her pay scale was determined at Rs 6500-10,500 which was the revised scale of pay. Her case has admittedly not been considered by the Fifth Pay Revision Commission. If a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed keeping in view the educational qualifications and other relevant factors by an expert body, no exception thereto can be taken. Concededly it was for the Union of India to assign good reasons for placing her in a different scale of pay. It has been done. We have noticed hereinbefore that not only the essential educational qualifications are different but the nature of duties is also different. Article 39(d) as also Article 14 of the Constitution of India must be applied, inter alia, on the premise that equality clause should be invoked in respect of the people who are similarly situated in all respects.” How the said principle is to be applied in different fact situation is the only question. Whereas this Court refused to apply the said principle as the petitioners therein did not have the requisite qualification; in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, the application of the rule was advocated to be left to an expert body, stating: (Dineshan K.K. case) SCC pp. 592-93, para 16)

principle of equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled.”

25. It may be that in Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, Variava, J., speaking for the three-Judge Bench, has used the word “may” in regard to the source of recruitment but the same has to be considered as a relevant factor as the operative part of the judgment shows. Charanjit Singh, therefore, does not militate against the other decisions of this Court where the mode and manner of appointment has been considered to be a relevant factor for the purpose of invocation of the said doctrine. We are bound by the aforementioned three-Judge Bench decision.”

67. In Steel Authority of India Limited and others vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya14 Dr. Chauhan, J. stated:

determination of the pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts.

19. The principle ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment, etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees.

20. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity….” … … …

30. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.

31. The onus to establish the discrimination by the employer lies on the person claiming the parity of pay. The Expert Committee has to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales, etc. falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for administration i.e. service conditions, etc. is found to be bona fide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post may not be the sole determinative factor. The courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work”.

68. Analysis of the decisions referred to above shows that this Court has accepted following limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’:i) The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not an abstract doctrine. ii) The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no mechanical application in every case. iii) The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, makes a difference. iv) The application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. v) Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. vi) Granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. vii) Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. viii) Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences. ix) Before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment. x) In a given case, mode of selection may be considered as one of the factors which may make a difference.

69. The latest decision on which heavy reliance was placed on behalf of Niyojit Teachers is the one rendered by a Bench of two Judges in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others[2]. The issues that arose for consideration were set out in para 5 as under:- “5. The issue which arises for our consideration is: whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale, along with dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts? The Full Bench (Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC Online P & H 15326) of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees. The exceptions recorded by the Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: (Avtar Singh case, SCC OnLine P&H para 37) “(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularisation, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.”

70. While considering the aforesaid issue this Court had noted all the decisions on the point of pay parity from Randhir Singh vs. Union of India31 and then in para 42 arrived at conclusions. The limitations or qualifications to the application of doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ were also considered in para 42 and from para 43 onwards, Claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees (differently designated as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual and the like) was also considered. After discussion on the point, the matter was concluded thus:-

71. The qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ which have long been recognised and acknowledged in the decisions referred to above are well established. The decision in Jagjit Singh[2] again reiterated some of those qualifications. These limitations or qualifications have not been diluted but stand re-inforced.

72. We may, at this stage, deal with the submission advanced on behalf of the State that the decision in Jagjit Singh did not take into account the earlier decisions rendered by this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28 and Zabar Singh vs. The State of Haryana29 and others. In the first case, Respondent Joginder Singh was working as a teacher in a District Board High School in Hoshiarpur before 1.10.1957. By reason of government decision taken in September, 1957, which came into effect on 1.10.1957 all teachers like Respondent Joginder Singh, employed in District Board and Municipal Board Schools, became State employees. Before such decision was taken, the State had decided to have two categories of teachers working in the State service. 15% of the total strength of teachers were put in a middle scale of a salary scale while the rest of 85% were put in a lower scale. The former, thus, had better chances of promotion to further levels. After taking over the schools run by District Board and Municipal Boards, which was called ‘provincialization’ the teachers like Respondent Joginder Singh, though became State employees, were part of cadre of provincialized teachers which was distinct from the cadre of State teachers. A decision was also taken not to make any further appointments in the provincialized cadre and thus said cadre was to be a dying or vanishing cadre. It was also decided that the provincialized cadre would stand bifurcated on the same pattern of 15:85 as was done in the State cadre but any retirements in the provincialized cadre would not result in fresh appointments in that cadre but the appropriate number would get added to the State cadre and fresh appointments would be made only in the State cadre. It must be noted that the employees in both the cadres were given the same pay-scale but their chances of promotion were completely different. The submission that with the passage of time, the strength of provincialized cadre would keep reducing and as such, the chances of promotion and being part of 15% group would keep diminishing and as such the employees in provincialized cadre would be put to prejudice was accepted by the High Court. It was observed by this Court in State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh28

the constitution of such services would be violative of Article 14. Underlying this submission are two postulates: (1) equal work must receive equal pay, and (2) if there be equality in pay and work there have to be equal conditions of service. So far as the first proposition is concerned it has been definitely ruled out by this Court in Kishori Mohanlal v. Union of India (1962 SC AIR 1139) Das Gupta, J. speaking for the Court said: “The only other contention raised is that there is discrimination between Class I and Class II officers inasmuch as though they do the same kind of work their pay scales are different. This, it is said, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. If this contention had any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officer’s service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14. The contention that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated, therefore, also fails.” The second also, is, in our opinion, unsound. If, for instance, an existing service is recruited on the basis of a certain qualification, the creation of another service for doing the same work, it might be in the same way but with better prospects of promotion cannot be said to be unconstitutional, and the fact that the rules framed permit free transfers of personnel of the two groups to places held by the other would not make any difference. We are not basing this answer on any theory that if a government servant enters into any contract regulating the conditions of his service he cannot call in aid the constitutional guarantees because he is bound by his contract. But this conclusion, rests on different and wider public grounds viz. that the government which is carrying on the administration has necessarily to have a choice in the constitution of the services to man the administration and that the limitations imposed by the constitution are not such as to preclude the creation of such services. Besides, there might, for instance, be a temporary recruitment to meet an exigency or an emergency which is not expected to last for any appreciable period of time. To deny to the Government the power to recruit temporary staff drawing the same pay and doing the same work as other permanent incumbents within the cadre strength but governed by different rules and conditions of service, it might be including promotions, would be to impose restraints on the manner of administration which we believe was not intended by the Constitution. For the purpose of the decision of this appeal the question here discussed is rather academic but we are expressing ourselves on it in view of the arguments addressed to us.

23. Besides the disparity in the chances of promotion between teachers of the provincialised and the State Cadre created by Rule 3 of the impugned rules, the learned Judges of the High Court have held that there was a further disparity by reason of the teachers of the State Cadre being borne on a Divisional list, while under the rules the inter se seniority and promotions of “provincialised” teachers was determined districtwise. It was pointed out by the learned Solicitor-General for the appellant that the State Cadre was kept on a Divisional basis because of the very small number of the members of that Service, whereas it was found administratively inconvenient to have a similar geographical classification of members of the provincialised service and for that reason and no other, districtwise seniority, promotion and transfers was laid down for provincialised teachers. Learned counsel for the respondent did not rely on this reasoning of the learned Judges of the High Court in deciding the case now under appeal. We therefore do not consider it necessary to make any further reference to it.

24. As we have stated already, the two services started as independent Services. The qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different, the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes. If the Government Order of September 27, 1957 did not integrate them into a single service, it would follow that the two remained as they started as two distinct services. If they were distinct services, there was no question of inter se seniority between members of the two services, nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Article 14 or Article 16(1). They started dissimilarly and they continued dissimilarly and any dissimilarity in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity, for it is common ground that within each group there is no denial of that freedom guaranteed by the two articles. The foundation therefore of the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court that the impugned rules created two classes out of what was formerly a single class and introduced elements of discrimination between the two, has no factual basis if, as we hold the order of September 27, 1957 did not effectuate a complete integration of the two Services. On this view it would follow that the impugned rules cannot be struck down as violative of the Constitution.

25. Before concluding it is necessary to point out that, as explained earlier, the source of the prejudice caused by the impugned rules to the “provincialised” teachers lies not in the fact that the two cadres were kept separate but on account of the fact that the “provincialised” cadre was intended to be gradually extinguished. The real question for consideration would therefore be whether there was anything unconstitutional in the Government decision in the matter. In other words, had the respondent and his class any fundamental right to have their cadre strength maintained undiminished? This is capable of being answered only in the negative. If their cadre strength became diminished, the proportion thereof who could be in the grade viz. 15% of the total strength being predetermined, there must necessarily be a progressive reduction in the number of selection posts. In other words a mere reduction of the cadre strength would bring about that result and unless the respondent could establish that the Government were bound in Law to fill up all vacancies in the provincialised cadre by fresh recruitment to that cadre and thus keep its strength at the level at which it was on October 1, 1957, he should fail. It is manifest that such a contention is obviously untenable.”

73. In the second decision it was contended that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Joginder Singh’s case required reconsideration and as such a Bench of seven Judges was constituted which dealt with the matter in Zabar Singh and others vs. The State of Haryana and others29. The discussion in paragraphs 27 to 30, 32 to 33 and 35, 36 and 40 was as under:- “27. The position which emerges from the aforesaid analysis is that prior to October 1, 1957, the two categories of teachers, those serving in the local bodies schools and those in government schools were distinct. Though the minimum qualifications and scales of pay might have been uniform, there were differences in other matters such as methods of recruitment, retiral benefits, rules for determining seniority, etc. It is also clear that whereas a government school teacher was liable to be transferred to any place throughout the Commissioner’s division, a local body teacher could only be transferred within the territorial limits of that body. Appointments in Local Bodies schools, no doubt, were made by Inspectors appointed by government, but they could do so only in consultation with the Chairman or President of such a body. That was the position also in regard to disciplinary matters. Further, although the prescribed minimum qualifications were the same, in point of fact 50% or more of the Local Bodies teachers were non-matriculates and quite a number of such non-matriculate teachers were also without the qualification of Basic Training as against a few non-matriculates and none without such Basic Training in the Government schools. In any event the mere fact that minimum qualifications and scales of pay were the same could not mean, in view of other dissimilar conditions of service, that the two categories of teachers formed one class. Indeed, Mr Tarkunde conceded, as is even otherwise clear, that prior to October 1, 1957, teachers in local bodies and in government schools did not form one class.

28. So far as the position on October 1, 1957, is concerned, as already noticed, the Government schools teachers were and continued to be governed by the Rules of 1955, which, no doubt, came into force with effect from May 30, 1957 and which prescribed the minimum qualifications as Matriculation in addition to Basic Training. Government school teachers who, under the 1937-Rules, were recruited by the Director of Public Instruction, were since 1954 selected by the Selection Board after their initial pay had been raised from Rs 47½ to Rs 50 per month. The Local Bodies teachers, on the other hand, were recruited by Inspectors in consultation with the Presidents or Chairmen of those bodies till July 1957 when fresh appointments in vacancies falling in those schools were stopped. Under the new Rules of 1955, Government provided for a selection grade for 15% posts. In fact, such a grade was given to them even before 1955-Rules were framed and the new rules merely continued that benefit. Broadly speaking, the position on October 1, 1957, was that the two categories of teachers formed distinct classes. Though they were performing similar duties, they could not be said to form one integrated class.

29. The question then is, whether in spite of the Government school teachers and the provincialised teachers forming two distinct classes on October 1, 1957, they were, during the period between that date and February 13, 1961, integrated into one class, which was split up into two cadres by those Rules? It would perhaps appear from the statement of the Education Minister made at the Press Conference on the eve of provincialisation that Government had in the beginning the idea of bringing about integration between the two types of teachers. But no such concrete decision was ever taken. A few dates at this stage may clarify the position. As aforesaid, the decision to provincialise the local bodies schools was taken on July 19, 1957. In pursuance of that decision. Government on August 2, 1957, placed a ban against any fresh recruitment of teachers in the Local Bodies schools. On September 27, 1957, the Governor sanctioned the scheme of provincialisation and at the same time sanctioned 20,000 and odd new posts to absorb the existing staff of the provincialised schools. Simultaneously with the provincialisation, the Government on October 1, 1957, gave the same scales of pay to the provincialised teachers as were available to government schools teachers. The problem, however, was how to fix and adjust the provincialised teachers in government service and fix their inter se seniority as also their seniority vis-a-vis the government schools teachers.

30. It is fairly clear from the memorandum published along with 1961-Rules that Government was seeking to discover a proper formula to solve these questions. This process was, it appears, going on since November 23, 1959, when alternative proposals were framed for discussion and those proposals were communicated to the recognised associations of the teachers. Since no agreed consensus was forthcoming from the teachers themselves, Government formed its own decisions as formulated by the Secretary, Education Department in his letter of January 27, 1960, to the Director of Public Instruction. These decisions were made around three basic principles:

(i) that the two cadres will continue to be separate as before; (ii) that the provincialised cadre would be a diminishing cadre; and (iii) following upon (i) and (ii), vacancies arising as a result of promotions, retirements, resignations, etc., in the provincialised cadre should be transferred to the State cadre so that ultimately after about thirty years the provincialised cadre would vanish altogether leaving the State cadre alone in the field. These events leave no doubt that at no time after October 1, 1957, any decision for integrating the two categories of teachers was taken although after October 1, 1957, new teachers were appointed and posted in both the provincialised as well as government schools who carried out the same duties and were given the same scales of pay as the provincialised teachers. But such new teachers had to be deemed to have been appointed in the State cadre by reason of the two principles decided upon by the Government, (i) the diminishing character of the provincialised cadre, and (ii) that cadre having been frozen from even before October 1, 1957. Thus, the two categories continued to be separate and were never integrated. The Government schools teachers and those appointed after October 1, 1957, were governed by 1955-Rules while the provincialised teachers continued to be presumably governed by the District Boards’ Rules until new rules were framed for them by Government. Thus the Rules of 1961 could not be said to have split up the teachers, who formed one integrated cadre into two new cadres. These Rules had to be made as the inter-seniority among provincialised teachers appointed by different local bodies in different districts had to be determined and their position in the service had to be adjusted. The Rules were framed on the principles formulated in the decisions taken by Government on July 27, 1960. … … …

32. It will be observed that though the provincialised teachers were given the same scales of pay as the teachers in the State cadre, the Rules provided that unlike the latter they could be transferred only within the District where they were serving. Those who were already confirmed prior to the provincialisation were also deemed to be confirmed under these Rules. That meant that for purposes of their seniority their entire service, including service before such confirmation would be taken into account, except that inter se seniority of those promoted to the selection grade was to be determined from the date of their confirmation in that grade.

33. Thus, although the teachers in both the cadres were given the same scales of pay and did the same kind of work and those appointed after October 1, 1957, were posted and worked in the same provincialised schools as teachers in the provincialised cadre, the fact was that the State cadre teachers were and continued to be governed by 1955-Rules while the provincialised teachers were governed by 1961-Rules. This fact, coupled with the fact that one was a district and the other a divisional cadre, meant that the two cadres continued to be separate cadres as before. The principal effect of the new Rules, however, was that the number of posts in the cadre would gradually diminish and together with that the total number of posts in the selection grade, despite the percentage of fifteen remaining intact. But that was the inevitable result of the freezing of the cadre, on the one hand, and its being a diminishing cadre on the other. The State cadre became correspondingly an expanding cadre, the total number of posts for all the schools, Government and provincialised, remaining more or less constant. … … …

35. The controversy thus really turns on the question whether Government was bound to integrate the two categories of teachers into one and not to continue them as separate cadres as before, and whether its refusal to do so meant violation either of Article 14 or Article 16. It is true that notwithstanding this Court upholding the validity of the 1961-Rules in Punjab v. Joginder, the then Government of Punjab in 1965 adopted a uniform running scale for both the cadres of Rs 60-Rs 175 with a common 15% for higher grade posts. But that decision has nothing to do with the question of the validity of 1961-Rules, and if those Rules were valid, with the validity of the decision of the new State of Haryana to implement those Rules instead of the common running scale adopted by Punjab State.

36. The principles on which discrimination and breach of Articles 14 and 16 can be said to result have been by now so well settled that we do not think it necessary to repeat them here once again. As already seen, ever since 1937 and even before, the two categories of teachers have always remained distinct, governed by different sets of rules, recruited by different authorities and having, otherwise than in the matters of pay-scales and qualifications, different conditions of service. This position remained as late as February 13, 1961. On that day whereas the State cadre teachers were governed by 1955-Rules, rules had yet to be framed for the provincialized teachers. The two cadres thus being separate, Government was not bound to bring about an integrated cadre especially in view of its decision of making the provincialized cadre a diminishing one and bringing about ultimately through that principle one cadre only in the field in a phased manner. If through historical reasons the teachers had remained in two separate categories, the classification of the provincialized teachers into a separate cadre could not be said to infringe Article 14 or Article 16. It was also not incumbent on the Government to frame the 1961-Rules uniformly applicable to both the categories of teachers, firstly, because a rule-framing authority need not legislate for all the categories and can select for which category to legislate (See Sakhawat Ali v. State of Orissa (1955) 1 SCR 1004; Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi v. Union of India (1961) 1 SCR 191 and Vivian Joseph Ferreira v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1972) 1 SCC 70) and secondly, because it had already come to a decision of gradually diminishing the provincialized cadre so that ultimately only the State cadre would remain in the service. That was one way of solving the intricate difficulty of inter-seniority. There can be no doubt that if there are two categories of employees, it is within Government’s power to recruit in one and not recruit in the other. There is no right in a government employee to compel it to make fresh appointments in the cadre to which he belongs. It cannot also be disputed that Government had the power to make rules with retrospective effect, and therefore, could provide therein that appointments made between October 1, 1957 and February 13, 1961, shall be treated as appointments in the State cadre. That had to be done for the simple reason that the provincialized cadre was already frozen even before October 1, 1957 and Government had decided not to make fresh appointments in that cadre since that cadre was to be a diminishing one. … … …

40. Regarding Respondents 37 to 96, all of them were appointed after provincialisation. They are junior in service than the petitioners and some others in the provincialised cadre. But their case is not comparable, for, they were appointed under 1955-Rules and through the recruitment authorities prescribed under those rules i.e. the Selection Board. Obviously, they could not be appointed in the provincialised cadre as that had been frozen even before October 1, 1957. They may have been posted in the provincialised schools but that cannot mean that they were appointed in that cadre. Their appointment being in a separate cadre, it is impossible to say that they were similarly situated. By reason of their recruitment in the State cadre, their conditions of service, including their promotional chances and their seniority would be governed by 1955-Rules and would only be comparable to those in that cadre only.”

74. Heavy reliance was placed on the aforesaid decisions by the learned Attorney General and the learned counsel who appeared for the State. It was submitted that though the teachers in provincialized cadre and the State cadre were doing similar duties and discharging identical responsibilities and though, they were as a matter of fact drawing similar pay and emoluments, the services were considered to be distinct and different. The feature that one of the cadres was to be a dying or vanishing cadre was also present in those cases. It was accepted by this Court that the State was within its Rights to let a particular service or cadre be a dying or vanishing cadre and keep making appointments in other service while maintaining distinct identities of both the services, even when the teachers coming from the both the cadres were doing identical jobs. Though, strictly speaking, those two matters did not involve concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’, these cases do point that the State can validly make such distinction or differentiation. The learned Attorney General and the learned counsel appearing for the State were, therefore, justified in placing reliance on these two decisions. It is also evident that the subsequent judgments have not noted the decisions of this Court in Joginder Singh28 and Zabar Singh29. For the purposes of present discussion, we will proceed on the basis that even when the teachers from both the cadres were discharging similar duties and responsibilities, the decision of the State government to maintain different identities of these two cadres was not found objectionable by this Court and further there could be inter se distinctions between these two cadres. It is true that both the cadres were enjoying same pay structure but the submission that the chances of promotion ought to be similar was not accepted by the Court.

75. We must also consider observations of this Court in paragraph 12 in its decision in Secretary, Finance Department and others vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others[8], which bring out how a ‘pay structure’ is evolved. The relevant portion of said paragraph was:-

12. … … Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities,

(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. … …”

76. We, therefore, have to proceed on the following basic premise:a) It was open to the State to have two distinct cadres namely that of ‘Government Teachers’ and ‘Niyojit Teachers’ with Government Teachers being a dying or vanishing cadre. The incidents of these two cadres could be different. The idea by itself would not be discriminatory. b) The pay structure given to the Niyojit Teachers was definitely lower than what was given to Government Teachers but the number of Government Teachers was considerably lower than the number of Niyojit Teachers. As stated above, presently there are just about 66,000 Government Teachers in the State as against nearly 4 lakh Niyojit Teachers. There is scope for further appointment of about 1 lakh teachers which could mean that as against 5 lakh teachers the number of State Teachers would progressively be going down. c) The parity that is claimed is by the larger group with the lesser group as stated above which itself is a dying or a vanishing cadre. d) The mode of recruitment of Niyojit Teachers is completely different from that of the Government Teachers as stated above.

77. If a pay structure is normally to be evolved keeping in mind factors such as “method of recruitment” and “employer’s capacity to pay” and if the limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ admit inter alia the distinction on the ground of process of recruitment, the stand taken on behalf of the State Government is not unreasonable or irrational. Going by the facts indicated above and the statistics presented by the State Government, it was an enormous task of having the spread and reach of education in the remotest corners. Furthermore, the literacy rate of the State which was lagging far behind the national average was also a matter which required attention. The advances made by the State on these fronts are quite evident. All this was possible through rational use of resources. How best to use or utilise the resources and what emphasis be given to which factors are all policy matters and in our considered view the State had not faltered on any count. As laid down by this Court in the decisions in Joginder Singh28 and Zabar Singh29, the State was justified in having two different streams or cadres. The attempt in making over the process of selection to Panchayati Raj Institutions and letting the cadre of State Teachers to be a dying or vanishing cadre were part of the same mechanics of achieving the spread of education. These issues were all part of an integrated policy and if by process of judicial intervention any directions are issued to make available same salaries and emoluments to Niyojit Teachers, it could create tremendous imbalance and cause great strain on budgetary resources.

78. It is true that the budgetary constraints or financial implications can never be a ground if there is violation of Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Similarly, while construing the provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder, that interpretation ought to be accepted which would make the Right available under Article 21A a reality. As the text of the Article shows the provision is essentially child-centric. There cannot be two views as regards the point that Free and Compulsory Education ought to be quality education. However, such premise cannot lead to the further conclusion that in order to have quality education, Niyojit Teachers ought to be paid emoluments at the same level as are applicable to the State Teachers. The modalities in which expert teachers can be found, whether by giving them better scales and/or by insisting on threshold ability which could be tested through examinations such as TET Examination are for the Executive to consider.

79. In our considered view, there has been no violation of the Rights of the Niyojit Teachers nor has there been any discrimination against them. We do not find that the efforts on part of the State Government could be labelled as unfair or discriminatory. Consequently, the submissions as to how the funds could and ought to be generated and what would be the burden on the State Government and the Central Government, do not arise for consideration. In our view, great strides have been made by the State in the last decade. It has galvanised itself into action and not only achieved the objectives of having schools in every neighbourhood but has also succeeded in increasing the literacy rate. It has also succeeded in having more girl children in the stream of education and consequently the TFR, as indicated above, has also improved to a great extent. If these are the benefits or rewards which the society stands to gain and achieve, the State ought to be given appropriate free play. The tabular charts placed on record by the State also show continuous improvements made by the State in the packages made available to the Niyojit Teachers. Said attempts also show that the State is moving in the right direction and the gap which is presently existing between the Government Teachers and the Niyojit Teachers would progressively get diminished. Considering the large number of Niyojit Teachers as against the Government Teachers, the steps taken by the State as evident from various tabular charts presented by it are in the right direction. At this juncture, any directions as have been passed by the High Court, may break even tempo which the State has consistently been able to achieve.

80. At the same time, the submission that at the initial stage the Niyojit Teachers are given such emoluments which are lesser than peons and clerks in the same school is a matter which requires attention. It is true that after having put in two years of service, the emoluments made available to Niyojit Teachers show some improvements but the disparity at the initial stage is more than evident. The State may certainly be entitled to devise a pay structure for Niyojit Teachers and the courts may not interfere in policy matters but, if there is an imbalance of the nature as presented before this Court, the matter raises concern. The teachers must be entitled to decent emoluments. In the chart referred to in para 32(c) above, after two years of service with proposed enhancement as per recommendations of the three member Committee the scales payable to Niyojit Teachers would show some increase as against those in respect of peons and clerks. The State may consider raising the scales of Niyojit Teachers at least to the level suggested by the Committee, without insisting on any test or examination advised by the Committee. Those who clear such test or examination, may be given even better scales. This is only a suggestion which may be considered by the State.

81. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals preferred by the State, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the Writ Petitions preferred on behalf of Niyojit Teachers.

82. In the end, we must express our sincere gratitude for the assistance rendered by all the learned counsel who appeared in the matters. We are grateful to all the learned counsel.

83. These appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ………………………….J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre) ………………………….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi; May 10, 2019.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 4862 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.20 of 2018) The State of Bihar & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4872 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.708 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4867 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.238 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4866 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.242 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4864 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.169 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4865 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.162 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4869 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.254 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4863 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.164 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4868 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.251 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL No.4870 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.240 of 2018)

AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4871 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.572 of 2018)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. I have had the advantage of going through an elaborate, well considered and scholarly drafted judgment proposed by my esteemed brother Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

2. I entirely agree with the reasoning and the conclusion, which my erudite brother has drawn, which are based on remarkably articulate process of reasoning. However, having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in these appeals, which was ably argued by senior lawyers in their respective submissions, I wish to add a few words of mine.

3. This case reminds me of the apt observations made by an eminent Judge of this Court, Vivian Bose J., in his concurring opinion in the case of Bidi Supply Co. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1956 SC 479. The learned Judge made these observations while examining the object and the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. In his immaculately and distinctive style of writing, the learned Judge made the observations in paras 15 and 16, which read as under: “15. With the utmost respect all this seems to me to break down on a precise analysis, for even among equals a large discretion is left to judges in the matter of punishment, and to the police and to the State whether to prosecute or not and to a host of officials whether to grant or withhold a permit or a licence. In the end, having talked learnedly round and around the article we are no wiser than when we started and in the end come back to its simple phrasing— “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

16. The truth is that it is impossible to be precise, for we are dealing with intangibles and though the results are clear it is impossible to pin the thought down to any precise analysis. Article 14 sets out, to my mind, an attitude of mind, a way of life, rather than a precise rule of law. It embodies a general awareness in the consciousness of the people at large of something that exists and which is very real but which cannot be pinned down to any precise analysis of fact save to say in a given case that it falls this side of the line or that, and because of that decisions on the same point will vary as conditions vary, one conclusion in one part of the country and another somewhere else; one decision today and another tomorrow when the basis of society has altered and the structure of current social thinking is different. It is not the law that alters but the changing conditions of the times and Article 14 narrows down to a question of fact which must be determined by the highest Judges in the land as each case arises. (See on this point Lord Sumner’s line of reasoning in Bowman vs. Secular Society Ltd., 1917 AC

406. Always there is in these cases a clash of conflicting claims and it is the core of the judicial process to arrive at an accommodation between them. Anybody can decide a question if only a single principle is in issue. The heart of the difficulty is that there is hardly any question that comes before the Courts that does not entail more than one so-called principle. As Judge Leonard Hand of the United States Court of Appeals said of the American Constitution.”

5. The aforesaid observations of Justice Vivian Bose, therefore, should always be kept in mind while deciding the question of the nature arising in every case including the one at hand.

6. As rightly held by brother Lalit J., the issue involved in these appeals is answered by two decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court, namely, State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh, 1963 Suppl(2) SCR 169 and Zabar Singh & Ors. vs State of Haryana and Ors. (1972 ) 2 SCC 275.

7. In my view also, the issue, which is subject matter of these appeals, has to be decided keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned two decisions of the Constitution Bench.

8. I may, at this stage, refer to a decision in N. Meera Rani vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2027. In this case, it was argued that the question involved in the appeal is governed by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC 334. It is pertinent to mention that the same question was also decided by this Court but it was decided subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench in many other cases. The later decisions on the same question were, however, rendered by the Benches comprised of lesser number of the Judges.

9. Justice J.S. Verma (as His lordship then was), speaking for Three Judge Bench, held that the question involved in the appeal before them has to be, therefore, decided in the light of law laid down by the Constitution Bench because firstly, it is a decision rendered by the Constitution Bench; Secondly, it is prior in point of time; and thirdly, the law laid down in later decisions has to be read in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. This is what His Lordship said in para 13: “13. We may now refer to the decisions on the basis of which this point is to be decided. The starting point is the decision of a Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1964 SC

334. All subsequent decisions which are cited have to be read in the light of this Constitution Bench decision since they are decisions by Benches comprising of lesser number of Judges. It is obvious that none of these subsequent decisions could have intended taking a view contrary to that of the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw case.”

10. Keeping in view the law laid down in N. Meera Rani (supra), I am of the view that the question involved in these appeals needs to be decided in the light of the law laid down by two decisions of the Constitution Bench rendered in Joginder Singh (supra) and Zabar Singh (supra).

11. Though the learned counsel for the respondents made sincere attempts on their part in contending that the law laid down in Joginder Singh (supra) and Zabar Singh (supra) has no application to the question involved in these appeals because the facts involved therein are not similar to the facts involved in these appeals, we are afraid, we cannot accept this submission. In my opinion, it is not so.

12. Brother Lalit,J. has dealt with this question elaborately in paras 72 to 74 of his opinion. I respectfully concur with his reasoning contained therein.

13. I am also, therefore, of the view that the appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court are dismissed..……… ................................... J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; May 10, 2019