ALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus DEFENCE MINISTER-CUM-CHAIRMAN BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 04-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 
v. 
B 
DEFENCE MINISTER-CUM-CHAIRMAN BOARD OF 
GOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY, 
NEW DELHI & ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
Civil Services: Sainik School employees-Cannot be treated as 
Central Government employees-Cannot be treated on par with 
c employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas. 
D 
· Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 12, 14, 39(d)-'Sainik 
School Society'-Whether 'State'-Employees claim for 'equal pay for 
equal work' -Whether tenable. 
Words and Phrases: 'Sainik Schools'-What are. 
The All India Salnlk Schools Employees Association in a petition 
filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has asked for a 
' 
E 
F 
G 
IH 
writ of mandamus directing the respondents, primarily, to extend to 
the employees working in the Sainik Schools all.the serVice benefits and 
advantages in the same pattern as obtaining in Kendriya Vidyalaya 
Sangthan. The petitioner's contentions are that the Sainik School 
Society is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and is accordingly 
. amenable to claim and enforcement of fundamental rights, and further 
that the society has to be guided by what is provided in Part 4 of the 
Constitution by way of Directive Principles of State Polley. 
Disposing of tte petition, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The entire funding of the Salnlk Schools Is· by the 
State Governments and the Central Government. The overall control 
vests in the governmental authority. It cannot therefore be doubted 
that the Sainik School Society is 'State' within the meaninfi of Article 
12. [405C) 
(2) Once It Is held that the Salnlk School Society Is 'State', appli-
cation of ,4.rtlcle 14 Is attracted. Simllarly under the Directive Princi· 
pies, the claim for equ.al pay for equal work becomes tenable. [40SD) 
398 
'·· 
) 
SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES v. SOCIETY 
399 
(3) Substantial contribution for running the Sainik School comes 
from the funds of the State where the school is located. The Cen· 
tral Government's contribution is minimal. The mode of funding is 
mainly through scholarship by the State payable to the students. It 
follows out of this fact that the employees of the Sainik School can· 
not tie treated as Central Government employees nor can they· be 
treated as at par with the employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas. They 
are a class by themselves. [405F-G] 
· 
( 4) In view of the position that the employees of the Sainik Society 
are a distinct class by themselves, there is no Il!erit in the claim that 
there has been discrimination. To put unequals as equals is against tlie 
objective of Article 14. [405G] 
(5) The claim of equal pay for equal work is indeed not tenable. A 
Sainik School intended essentially to draw young men for being 
recruited into the National Defence Academy is not an ordinary school.· 
Its currlCulum, _the pattern of teaching,_i~e Hie style; the discipfuie nnd 
attention differ. A claim for equal pay on the allegation of equal work 
requires clear material to support the basis that the work is both the 
institutions is the same. The claim of the petitioner that the work In the 
two institution is equal, and, therefore, the claim for equality of pay 
cannot be accepted. ]406A, C-E] 
(6) The Sainik School Society being, 'State' is amenable to the 
jurisdiction of the Court and it is open to the court to examine whether 
the conditions of service are of an acceptable pattern. [406Ef 
(7) The Court accordingly examined the petitioner's demnnds 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
and passed appropriate orders directing specific reliefs in terms of 
medical, leave travel concession benefits and house b.;ildlng and other 
F 
advances. The Court however found nothing unreasonable in the condl· 
tion of service pertaining to age of retirement: [407G] 
Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., [1981] 1 
SCC 722 and International Airport Authority case., [1979] 3 SCC 489 . 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Wnt Petition No. 
1987. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
1219 of . G 
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P.N. Puri and R.K. Talwar for the 
H 
Petitioner. 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Kuldip Singh and B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor Generals, 
Mahabir Singh, C.M. Nayar, A.K. Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, 
A.S. Bhasme and A.V. Rangamfor the Respondents. 
B 
c 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered-by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This application is under Article 32 
of the Constitution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.