Avtar Singh v. Punjabi Academy

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1/ACADEMY and RESPONDENT NO. 2/GNCTD

14. On behalf of Respondent No. 2/DoE, GNCTD, it was submitted that in order to fulfil the aims and objectives of Punjabi Academy of promoting Punjabi language, literature and culture in Delhi, Punjabi Language Teaching Scheme was introduced in 1985-86 and under the Scheme, parttime Punjabi language Teachers were deployed in those schools where there was demand for learning the language from parents of the students and the Heads of the schools and where minimum number of students interested in learning Punjabi was 6. No selection process was followed for these appointments and any individual who had knowledge of Punjabi and could teach, read and write the language and was registered with the Academy was sent to respective schools for teaching upto 3 hours. As per the terms and conditions of appointment, the appointments were on a consolidated monthly remuneration to be paid by the Academy for part-time engagements and it was stipulated in the appointment letters that the appointees will not be eligible for regularisation and will not claim any right or privilege in that regard and/or any other service benefits. The engagements were purely temporary/ad hoc. Initially, the Finance Committee of GNCTD in 1985 increased the remuneration to Rs.500/- per month for middle level schools and Rs.600/- per month for senior/secondary level. Increase in the remuneration was considered again in 1990 by Finance and Staff Selection Committee, Punjabi Academy and the remuneration was increased to Rs.600/- per month for primary level, Rs.700/- for middle level and Rs.800/for senior/secondary level. Later, the remuneration was further increased in the year 2000 and thereafter in the year 2007.

15. Following the Cabinet Decision dated 28.05.2016, remuneration of various categories of Teachers was increased on the basis of Consumer Price Index Norm (CPI), whereby remuneration of TGT (Untrained), M.A. Gyani was fixed at Rs.8,150/-; for TGT (Untrained), B.A. Gyani was fixed at Rs.7,520/- and for Assistant Teacher (Untrained) Secondary/Senior Secondary was fixed at Rs.6,580/- and it was decided that in future the increase will be made based on CPI, as applicable on 01st April of each year. After the Cabinet Decision, in the year 2023, part-time Assistant Teachers (untrained) with Class 10+2 qualifications are drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,168/- whereas those with B.A. and M.A. qualifications are drawing monthly salaries of Rs.8,192/- and Rs.8,885/- respectively and there cannot be any grievance that there is no increase in the remuneration of the Petitioners.

16. Appointment letters of the Petitioners are self-explanatory. They were appointed to work part-time for three hours duration each day and the nature of appointments was purely temporary/ad hoc. The educational qualification required for appointment was Matriculation and basis this qualification, the remuneration was fixed at the time of offering the appointments. Acquiring higher qualifications subsequently will not give any right to the Petitioners to claim higher remuneration and least of all to compare themselves with regularly appointed Teachers, who are drawing a higher pay scale on account of their qualifications and mode of appointment etc. Clearly, Petitioners were not appointed as per the Recruitment Rules of DoE and they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications stipulated in the Rules for appointment of Assistant Teacher. Petitioners have admittedly not cleared the competitive examinations conducted by Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB), which is the mode of recruitment of regular Teachers in GNCTD. Indisputably, Petitioners were engaged under a special Scheme to promote Punjabi language by the Punjabi Academy, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and no funds are granted by DoE to the society.

17. Appointment of the language Teacher i.e. TGT (Punjabi, Urdu, Sanskrit) is done as per Recruitment Rules of DoE which stipulate appointment of a TGT only through promotion or direct recruitment whereas Petitioners were appointed without any selection process, basis the fact that they knew how to read and write Punjabi language and on demand from MCD schools. Petitioners cannot compare themselves with regularly appointed Assistant Teachers working on sanctioned posts as there are stark differences in qualifications, mode of recruitment and nature and duration of duties and Petitioners were well-aware of this distinction from the dates of their initial appointments. Consequently, no claim can be made that Petitioners should be given monthly salary calculated at 50% of the salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Teacher.

18. Part-time Punjabi Teachers in the Academy filed W.P. (C) 1080/1994 in this Court seeking regularisation, which was dismissed on 16.11.1998 on the ground that being part-time employees, Petitioners could not seek regularisation. Regular process of appointment was initiated by DoE but some Petitioners were ineligible and many failed to qualify the selection process and hence continued as part-time Teachers. In the primary schools run under aegis of DoE, Punjabi is not taught as a subject and it is only if some students in a school are desirous of learning Punjabi as a language, requests are sent by MCD or other authorities running the schools to the said effect and the Academy deputes these Teachers to teach the language.

19. The decisions in Durraj Fatima (supra) and Rani (supra) were no doubt implemented but these decisions are inapplicable to the present cases as the Petitioners therein possessed higher qualifications and were TGTs/PGTs. The decision in Rani (supra) was implemented for those part-time Teachers who had B.Ed. qualifications but had not studied Punjabi as a subject and were therefore not entitled to be appointed as regular Teachers to teach Punjabi. Arrears were calculated at 50% of Basic Pay+HRA+DA+TA upto July, 2016 and were paid to all part-time Teachers. Insofar as untrained Teachers were concerned, remuneration was enhanced and fixed at Rs.6,300/-, Rs.7,200/- and Rs.7,800/- respectively for three categories viz. those with 10+2 qualifications; those who were graduate; and those who possessed M.A. Degree. On yearly basis, remuneration has been increased following CPI and as in April, 2023, the remuneration was Rs.7,168/-, Rs.8,192 and Rs.8,885/- in the respective categories.

20. Broadly, Teachers working in the Academy can be broadly categorised as: (a) part-time Teachers, who are B.A./M.A. but not qualified for Assistant Teacher and not selected through DSSSB and simply deputed by the Academy on demand. Remuneration of this category was fixed on the basis of judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra), at 50% of the salary (Basic Pay + DA) drawn by the regular Teacher; (b) Assistant Teacher (Untrained) with qualifications of B.A./M.A. and Gyani. As per Cabinet Decision, their salary was fixed on basis of existing payment being made plus CPI every year and as in 2023 the monthly wage was Rs.9,165/-; and (c) Assistant Teacher (Untrained) with B.A. qualification. In this case, monthly salary was fixed on existing payment plus CPI every year and was Rs.8,448/- in 2023; and

(d) Assistant Teacher (Untrained) having passed Class X/XII. Monthly salary for this category was fixed on the existing salary plus CPI and was Rs.7,392/- in 2023.

21. There is a clear distinction between the Petitioners, who were engaged on part-time basis for teaching Punjabi for three hours a day and an Assistant Teacher who teaches Classes I to V mostly in MCD schools and is required to take classes in all subjects i.e. English, Maths, Science, Hindi and Social Studies. Therefore, the two classes cannot be equated, either in terms of the nature of duties performed or the number of hours for which they worked and the claim for ‘equal pay for equal work’ by the Petitioners is wholly misconceived. Petitioners have miserably failed to establish that they were performing duties similar to regular Teachers. More importantly, DoE has no sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher (Punjabi) in any of its schools and which is why no individual from the Academy has been engaged on the post of Assistant Teacher.

22. Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under Section 23 of the 2009 Act does not rescue the Petitioners since they do not meet the minimum qualifications prescribed therein nor have they cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’) prescribed in the Notification. Minimum qualifications under the Notification are as follows:- “1 Minimum Qualifications

(i) Classes I-V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002: OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El.. Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Education (Special Education) AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”

23. Much was argued by the Petitioners that their cases are similar to those of the Petitioners in Durraj Fatima (supra), which is an incorrect submission. A bare reading of the judgment makes it evident that Petitioners in the said cases possessed qualifications of an Assistant Teacher albeit they were part-time Teachers. A minor difference in fact will make the judgment inapplicable. Petitioners have conceded during the course of hearing that they are not claiming regularisation, which is the main relief sought in the writ petitions and therefore, the petitions are rendered infructuous. Salaries of the Petitioners are in consonance with the nature and duration of their work and the appointment letters, which they willingly accepted.

24. Petitioners were completely aware from the beginning that they did not fulfil the minimum qualifications for appointment as regular Assistant Teacher but despite many opportunities, they did not take the initiative to acquire the qualifications required under the applicable Recruitment Rules. As per Rule 100 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (‘DSEAR’), Petitioners are not eligible for appointment as part-time Teachers and their services were liable to be terminated but Respondents have been magnanimous to continue their services for over three decades but this magnanimity cannot be stretched to granting them wages at 50% of those paid to regularly appointed Teachers possessing qualification of B.Ed.

25. Be it noted that at the fag end of the arguments, a letter was handed over in Court on behalf of the Academy written and signed by the Secretary stating that the untrained Teachers are being paid salary as per Cabinet Decision which have been increased from time to time as per CPI. A proposal has been sent to the Government after approval of the Executive Committee of the Academy for placing the matter before Cabinet for fixing the wages as per minimum wages, notified from time to time, for different categories i.e. Matric, Non-Graduates and Graduates.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

26. The moot question arising for consideration before this Court in these writ petitions is whether Petitioners are entitled to re-fixation of salaries at 50% of the salary drawn by a regular Primary/Assistant Teacher in light of the decisions of the Division Bench in Durraj Fatima (supra) and Rani (supra), since Petitioners have expressly given up their claim for regularisation.

27. The backdrop to these petitions is that in order to fulfil the aims and objectives of the Punjabi Academy to promote Punjabi language, literature and culture in Delhi, Punjabi Teaching Scheme was introduced in 1985-1986, under which part-time Punjabi language teachers were deployed in those schools where there was demand for learning the language from the parents of the students and Heads of schools and where minimum of 6 students expressed interest in learning the language. To give effect to the scheme, Academy appointed the Petitioners as part-time Punjabi Teachers at a monthly consolidated salary, which, depending on the dates of appointments varied between Rs.500/- to Rs.4,500/-. There was a stipulation in the appointment letters that the appointees will not seek regularization and duration of teaching will be 3 hours a day. As noted above, dates of appointments of the Petitioners vary between 1986 to 1991, save and except two Petitioners who were appointed in 2004 and 2010 respectively. As brought forth, the monthly consolidated salary of the Petitioners starting from Rs.500/- in most cases was marginally increased from time to time and even as per the chart submitted by the Respondents along with their written submissions, the last drawn salary of part-time Assistant Teachers (Untrained) with 10+2 qualification was Rs.7,168/- while that of untrained Teachers with B.A./M.A. was Rs.8,192/- and Rs.8,885/- respectively in the year 2023.

28. Broadly understood, case of the Petitioners is predicated on the judgment of the Division Bench in Durraj Fatima (supra), wherein the Court observed that it shocked the conscience of the Court to note that part-time Primary Teachers teaching Urdu in Municipal schools were being paid a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month while their counterparts even in the minimum of scale were drawing a salary of Rs.21,745/- and those with several years of service to their credit, ranging from 22 to 29 years were drawing monthly wage of Rs.45,000/-. Petitioners also contest the stand of the Respondens that they have been rendering service only for three hours in a day albeit it is so stipulated in their appointment letters and urged that apart from actual teaching in the school, they were tasked to do administrative jobs, invigilation and other duties, which went well beyond 3 hours. It was strenuously contended that denial of the benefit of the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra) to the Petitioners on the ground that they are ‘untrained’ teachers is fallacious. The Court did not grant the relief of pay fixation at 50% of the salary of regular teachers on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by the Petitioners therein and as can be seen from the judgement, the sole reason to allow the petitions was that the Court was shocked at the abnormally low wages that were being paid to the Petitioners i.e. Rs. 5000/- to TGT and Rs.5,500/- to PGT, after rendering over 25 years of service, in comparison to their counterparts. Even otherwise, lack of higher educational qualifications cannot come in the way of the Petitioners for the reason that the requisite education qualification in the advertisements was matriculation, which the Petitioners fulfilled at the time of appointments and it is nobody’s case that there was any difference in the nature of duties performed by the Petitioners herein and the Petitioners in Durraj Fatima (supra). It was urged that Respondents have overlooked the fact that vide Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of 2009 Act, Petitioners were exempted from acquiring the minimum higher qualifications referred to in paragraph 1 of the Notification albeit many have over a period of time acquired qualifications of B.A./B.Ed. or M.A./B.Ed. etc.

29. On the other hand, Respondents contended that Petitioners are parttime untrained Teachers and thus not similarly placed as the Petitioners in the case of Durraj Fatima (supra), who though being part-time Teachers, were TGTs and/or PGTs and thus possessed requisite educational qualifications of an Assistant Teacher. It was also asseverated that there is no sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher (Punjabi) in the schools run by DoE, besides the fact that Petitioners were not regular Teachers appointed through competitive examinations conducted by DSSSB as per Recruitment Rules. Respondents emphasized that a clear distinction exists in the 3 categories of teachers viz: part-time Teachers who are B.A. and/or M.A. but not qualified for post of Assistant Teacher in MCD schools; Assistant Teacher (Untrained) with qualifications of B.A./M.A. and Gyani; Assistant Teacher (Untrained) B.A. and Assistant Teacher (Untrained) Class X/XII pass, basis which the salaries are fixed. It was also contended that Petitioners are/were part-time Teachers teaching Punjabi language only for three hours a day unlike other Teachers who teach Classes I to V mostly in MCD schools in all subjects and possess minimum educational qualifications prescribed in Notification dated 23.08.2010 viz. senior secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and two year Diploma in Elementary Education or senior secondary or its equivalent with at least 45% marks and two year Diploma in Elementary Education, in accordance with NCTE Regulations, 2002 or senior secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and four year Bachelor of Elementary Education or senior secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and with two year Diploma in Special Education and have cleared Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the Appropriate Government in accordance with Guidelines of NCTE.

30. In the written submissions dated 02.04.2025 filed on behalf of the Academy and DoE, it is stated that judgment of Durraj Fatima (supra), which pertains to Urdu Academy was implemented and 50% of the wages were paid w.e.f. 01.01.2000, firstly upto 2014 and thereafter each year. From 01.01.2016, wages of MCD Primary Teachers as per Cabinet Decision were calculated under 6th CPC and taking the Pay Band of Rs.9300-38400 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- plus DA, 50% was calculated at Rs.14,383/-. As per Cabinet Decision dated 28.05.2016, there were three other categories of Untrained part-time Primary Teachers with 10+2/Graduate/MA qualifications, who were engaged to teach Punjabi language only and from the very beginning, remuneration of these Teachers was not at par with qualified and trained part-time Punjabi Teachers. With the approval of the Cabinet, the monthly salaries were enhanced to Rs.6,300/-, Rs.7,200/- and Rs.7,800/, respectively from July, 2016 and were increased from year to year following CPI and between July, 2022 to April, 2023, monthly salaries in the respective three categories are Rs.7,168/-, Rs.8,192/- and Rs.8,885/respectively. Broadly understood, the case of the Respondents is that Petitioners are part time teachers but untrained as they are X or XII class pass and cannot claim parity with the Petitioners in Durraj Fatima (supra), who possessed higher educational qualifications and were TGTs and PGTs albeit employed on part-time basis.

31. These batch of petitions to my mind, brings to light a very unfortunate and sorry state of affairs. Petitioners started their journey with the Academy on different dates between 1986 to 1991 and some a little later, with a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 500/- or marginally higher amount, as the case may be, and have devoted nearly three decades and prime time of their lives to teaching and promoting Punjabi language in MCD schools. However, shockingly their monthly consolidated salary even today is less than the monthly wage of an unskilled worker fixed as per Notification dated 26.09.2024 issued by Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. From the Notification, it is evident that the monthly wage of an unskilled worker in 2024 is Rs.18,066/- while that of a semi-skilled worker is Rs.19,929/- and of a skilled worker is Rs. 21,917/-. It be noted that during the pendency of these petitions, several opportunities were given to the Respondents to amicably reconcile the issue and enhance the monthly wage but sadly, there was no positive response.

32. From the facts and circumstances that have obtained during the hearing, there is little doubt that Respondents are completely oblivious of the Constitutional goals and Directive Principals of State Policy as also Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India. One wonders whether in a post-Constitutional era, a welfare State as a model employer can be justified in defending its action of paying to the teachers employed by it a wage below the minimum wage of an unskilled labour. It shocks my conscience to note that after 25-30 years of service as Punjabi language teachers, Petitioners’ last drawn salaries are less than Rs.7,000/-. In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2694, the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution recognises dignity and individual autonomy inherent in all citizens and their right to life and personal liberty. Liberty and autonomy advance the cause of human dignity and when individuals are granted freedom to make choices about their lives, the freedom fosters a sense of self-worth and respect, thereby recognising individual dignity and by safeguarding these principles, we ensure that intrinsic worth of every human being is recognised and upheld. In transformation of society against colonial and pre-colonial ideology, Constitution seeks to assure values of a just, humane and compassionate existence to all the citizens.

33. The Supreme Court further observed that in a post-Constitutional society, law must take affirmative steps to achieve equal protection of law to all its citizens and any discussion on Constitution must therefore take a conscious view of the lived realities of citizens. Constitution of India is an emancipatory document and not just a legal document and in India’s social structure, it is a quantum leap. Constitution mandates replacement of fundamental wrongs with fundamental rights. Chapter on Fundamental Rights places provisions on equality, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, affirmative action, abolition of untouchability, freedom of speech, right to life and prohibition of forced labour together. Justice Krishna Iyer called the Constitution ‘a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of transforming a medieval, hierarchical society into a modern egalitarian democracy’ in his concurring opinion in State of Kerala and Another v. N. M. Thomas and Others, (1976) 2 SCC 310. The Supreme Court referred to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasised on principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness and held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.

34. In the context of the present cases, I may also allude to the observations of the Supreme Court in the context of Article 23(1) of the Constitution which provides ‘traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law’. The Supreme Court observed that Article 23(1) provides an enforceable fundamental right against social and economic exploitation and aims to prohibit human trafficking, begar and similar forms of forced labour. Foundations of Article 23 were laid even prior to discussions in the Constituent Assembly when Dr. Ambedkar in his work titled ‘States and Minorities’ in 1947 conceptualized the interlinkages between one’s economic condition and the ability to exercise fundamental rights. Dr. Ambedkar proposed that rights of individuals should be protected from exploitation by adopting a favourable constitutional framework as exploitative socio-economic practices can hinder the right to live a dignified life.

35. The Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha (supra) further observed that the term ‘begar’ largely refers to those practices where workers are either unpaid or paid very little for their jobs and is entrenched in India’s social system, against which Article 23 makes a blow. Reference was made by the Supreme Court to the judgment in People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1982) 3 SCC 235, wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of the terms ‘begar’ and ‘forced labour’ under Article 23(1) by treating a letter as a writ petition and examined the grievances of the Petitioners that labourers were not being paid the minimum daily wages. It was observed by the Supreme Court that framers of the Constitution adopted Article 23 to put an enforceable obligation on the State to end bonded labour, which was the ‘relic of feudal exploitative society’ and ‘incompatible with the new egalitarian socioeconomic order’. It was also observed that the phrase ‘forced labour’ is of wide amplitude and would cover instances where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage. Referring to the said decision, the Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha (supra), observed that this judgment laid down an important constitutional principle that when fundamental rights such as those under Article 23 are violated, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to take necessary steps to interdict such violations and ensure observance of the fundamental rights even by private individuals, who are transgressing the same. Reference was also made to the decision in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, (1983) 1 SCC 525, where the Supreme Court observed that State cannot be permitted to take advantage of helpless conditions of affected persons and extract labour or service from them on payment of less than the minimum wage. No work of utility and value can be allowed to be constructed on the blood and sweat of persons, who are reduced to a state of helplessness due to their conditions.

36. In the context of Article 23, it will be apposite to advert to observations of the Supreme Court in People’s Union (supra). It was observed that ordinarily no one would be willing to supply labour or service to another for less than the minimum wage and therefore, it may be legitimately presumed that when a person does so, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him into work though he is paid less and this is what is prohibited by Article 23.

37. The judgment of the Division Bench in Durraj Fatima (supra), was predicated entirely on these principles, wherein it was observed that it shocked the conscience of the Court that even after 22 to 29 years of service, a teacher takes home a salary of Rs.5,000/- and it cannot be overlooked that this judgment was pronounced in the year 2010 and even today, the monthly wage of the Petitioners herein is less than Rs.7000/-. Relevant passages from the judgement are as follows:- “10. Thus, once we lift the veil, we find that the source of funds utilized to pay the monthly remuneration to the petitioners is either the Government of NCT Delhi or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioners admittedly rendered service in government schools and thus the quid pro quo is complete in the form of funds flowing from the Government of NCT Delhi and the Municipal corporation of Delhi who then become the recipient of the services rendered by the petitioners. The status of Urdu Academy is merely of a canalizing agency.

11. Neither party brought to the notice of the court that the schools established and run by the Government of NCT Delhi and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as also all other private schools recognized and operating in the Union Territory of Delhi are statutorily regulated by the provisions of the Delhi school Education Rules 1973 which prohibits appointment of part time teachers except in primary schools or primary classes of a school. As per Rule 101(1) of the Delhi school Education Rules 1973 it is lawful to engage part time teachers in primary schools or in the primary classes of a middle level or the senior secondary schools but on regular basis. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 101 mandates that the salary of a part time teacher has to include the allowances which ‘shall be one-half of those of a full-time teacher appointed on a regular basis'. The proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 101 requires that medical facilities and other benefits (not being pensionary or retirement benefits) admissible to a Part-Time Teacher have to be the same as admissible to a Full-Time Teacher.

12. If there is a mandate of law, the same cannot be violated by the Executive and there cannot be a contract contrary to law. Contractual appointments of part time teachers, even if resorted to has to be as per the Statute and thus under no circumstances can Part Time Teachers be paid salary and other allowances less than one-half of what is paid to the Full- Time Teachers appointed on a regular basis.

13. Let us work upon and expose the prejudice caused to the petitioners by the high handedness of the State. As noted by us above the pay band of Primary Teachers, TGTs and PGTs is Rs.93OO-34800/-. The grade pay is Rs.4200/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.48O0/- respectively. Thus, on joining, as of today the pay packet per month of a Primary Teacher would be:- Basic Pay: Rs. 9300/- Dearness Allowance: Rs. 3255/- Grade Pay: Rs. 4200/- HRA:Rs. 2790/- TA: Rs. 2200/- Total: Rs.21745/-

14. It shocks the conscience of this Court to note that the part-time Primary Teachers teaching Urdu in the Municipal Schools are being paid a meager sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and their counterparts, even in the minimum of the scale draw a minimum monthly salary of Rs.21745/- with additional benefits of Contributory Provident Fund. The shock to the conscience of this Court gets aggravated when we note that all the petitioners have crossed their middle age and have been teaching for various periods ranging from 22 years to 29 years and applying the pay scale, giving increments, as regularly appointed Teachers would be drawing a minimum monthly wage of Rs.45,000/- and what they are getting is only Rs.5,000/- per month.

15. But our shocked conscience needs to be absorbed at least 50% for the reason as part-time Teachers their legal entitlement would be to be paid half the salary and other allowances. The reduced shock still jolts us when we find that in the minimum of the pay scale, being entitled to 50% the teachers teaching in Primary Schools should be entitled to at least Rs.10872.50 in the minimum of the scale. Thus, we find a fairly shocking discrimination vis-a-vis the teachers teaching in the primary schools under the MCD and not so less a shocking discrimination vis-a-vis their counterparts who are teaching under Schools established by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi.

16. The aforesaid illustrations are on the minimum of the pay scale and if annual increments have to be accounted for, we find that the petitioners who are teaching in the schools established by the MCD are being paid one-fourth of their due which has to be 50% of the wage which they would have received as full time Teachers. To put it in figures, with annual increments and thereafter reducing the pay to 50%, the petitioners teaching Urdu in Municipal Schools ought to be receiving at least Rs.20,000/- per month and as against that are being paid Rs.5,000/- per month. Their counterparts teaching in the Senior Secondary Schools are receiving approximately half of their due.

17. We dispose of the writ petitions issuing a mandamus to the respondents to release the salary due and payable to the petitioners with reference to the mandate of Rule 101 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and as explained by us herein above. Noting that the petitioners raise the claim when they filed writ petitions in this Court in the year 2000 which were transferred for adjudication to the Tribunal, we direct that arrears would be paid with effect from 1.1.2000 and the same would be calculated by determining the wages payable as per Rule 101 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 with reference to the pay scales applicable to the regularly appointed teachers and the entitlement of the petitioners would be 50% of the wages payable. Since the Director of Education is charged with the statutory duty of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and the rules framed thereunder our mandamus is directed to the Director of Education to ensure compliance not only pertaining to the Government Schools directly under his control but even the Municipal Schools.

18. We note that we have not decided the claim of the petitioners for being paid equal wages on account of performing full duties for the reason there is no material to support the said plea.”

38. A bare reading of the judgment shows that the Petitioners before the Division Bench were also part-time Teachers employed with Urdu Academy for teaching Urdu language for a duration of three hours per day. This Court is unable to discern from the judgement that the decision to grant 50% of the wages paid to the counterpart regular teachers was based on the higher educational qualifications possessed by the Petitioners and/or the fact that they were TGTs/PGTs, a distinction sought to be drawn by the Respondents ingeniously but erroneously, in denying the benefit of the judgment to the Petitioners herein. Clearly, what weighed with the Court was the fact that having served as Teachers for 22 to 29 years, Petitioners were drawing a meagre salary of Rs.5,000/-/Rs.5,500/- per month respectively, while a regularly appointed Teacher with equal years of service was drawing a minimum monthly wage of Rs.45,000/-. It is in this backdrop that direction was issued to the Respondents to fix the salaries of the Petitioners at 50% way back in 2010. Admittedly, as per the chart filed by the Respondents, even as in the year 2022, monthly salaries of what the Respondents term as ‘untrained teachers’ is about Rs.7000/-, despite the Division Bench holding in the year 2010 that monthly salaries of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.5,500/- were unconscionable. Significantly, the Division Bench did not enter into the controversy as to whether the Petitioners were working full-time or parttime as can be seen from paragraph 18 of the judgment, wherein the Court observed that the claims of the Petitioners for equal wages were not being decided on account of their performing full duties for the reason there was no material to support the said plea.

39. Even otherwise, in the backdrop of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above and Article 23 of the Constitution, there is little doubt that the action of the Respondents, called in question in these petitions, cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny and must be interdicted. State as a model employer cannot be heard to justify payment of a monthly wage of about Rs. 7000/- to teachers in 2025, having served for decades in promoting the goals and objectives of the State to preserve the heritage of the country. This is nothing short of exploitation, an evil sought to be eradicated and prohibited under Article 23 and needless to state Directives in Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution are completely violated.

40. Courts have from time to time advocated enforcement of fundamental rights against social and economic exploitation and held that the term ‘forced labour’ is of wide amplitude and includes in its fold cases where employees are forced by circumstances to take up employment at wages below the minimum wage, which is exactly the case here. As a model employer, GNCTD is bound to ensure enforcement of Article 23(1) and prohibit employment at meagre wage. State action must be fair, reasonable and far from arbitrary and tested on this anvil, the question is whether a wage of Rs.6,720/- or marginally higher than that can be said to be a fair wage for a teacher with 30 years of service and the answer can only be in the negative. In my view, no reasonable or prudent person could stand up to justify a wage below the minimum wage after 75 years from the making of the Constitution and 78 years from independence. Instead of taking forward the Constitutional goals and enforcing Article 23(1), even today strangely and shockingly, Respondents stand to canvass every possible argument under the sun to contest these petitions.

41. The gross facts of these cases remind me of the observations of the Supreme Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Others v. Kerala Water Authority and Others, (1991) 1 SCC 28, which I quote hereunder:-

42. Denial of a decent wage to the Petitioners and benefit of the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra) is primarily predicated on the difference in the educational qualification possessed by the Petitioners at the time of their appointments. The denial has absolutely no basis in law for the simple reason that the Petitioners were appointed on fulfilling the requisite qualifications stipulated in the respective advertisements and this fact is uncontroverted. This is besides the fact that the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra) had nothing to do with the educational qualifications of the Petitioners therein. It is nobody’s case that Petitioners perform duties different from the teachers teaching Urdu or Sanskrit language and/or that their Matriculation or 10+2 qualification have been an impediment in their teaching. The very fact that Petitioners have continued for decades demonstrates their competence and capabilities and certainly makes them entitled to a decent wage after serving for a lifetime. Additionally, Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under Section 23(1) of 2009 Act, exempts the Petitioners from acquiring higher qualifications specified in paragraph 1 thereof since they fall in the exempted category, having been appointed prior to the date of issue of the Notification. This is yet another reason why the educational qualifications of the Petitioners cannot stand in their way from being given the benefit of the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra).

43. Though subtly, it was also argued on behalf of the Respondents that when Petitioners took up employment, they were well-aware of the nature of their appointments as also the wages they were entitled to. This very argument was negated by the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli and Another v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, where the Supreme Court observed as under:-

welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value……”

44. In light of the facts obtaining in the present cases, I am constrained to hold that the act of the Respondents in fixing the wages of the Petitioners below the minimum wage and denying them the legitimate right to seek benefit of the decisions in Durraj Fatima (supra) and Rani (supra), cannot be given a legal cover or protection. Cases of the Petitioners are squarely covered by the said decisions, entitling them to the same relief.

45. Accordingly, it is directed that Respondents shall re-fix the salaries of the Petitioners in accordance with the judgment in Durraj Fatima (supra) at 50% of the salary of a regularly appointed Assistant/Primary Teacher. The exercise of re-fixation of the salaries of the Petitioners shall be carried out and completed within 8 weeks from today and arrears will be released within 4 weeks thereafter. Petitioners are also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the dates due till the dates of actual payment.

46. Writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with pending applications.