JAIPAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 02-06-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JAIPAL & OTHERS 
~· 
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 
JUNE 2, 1988 
IK.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Articles 14 and 39( d)-' Equal pay for 
EqualWork'__:_constitutional obligation ofthe State-Difference it modeof 
selection for posts not material-Similar functions and duties under the 
same employer-Relevancy of. 
In the State of Haryana two identical schemes are simultaneously 
in operation with the object of imparting literacy (functional and 
. awareness) to adult illiterates and to provide literacy to children keep-
ing away from school. The first scheme, known as the Adult and Non-
formal Education Scheme, is financed by tbe Central Government 
under its Rural Functional Literacy Programme/Project, but is 
administered by the State Government. Under this scheme, a number of 
Adult Education Centres have been opened to impart literacy to adult 
illiterates. The petitioners were appointed as Instructors at these 
cen~res on different dates. They are being paid a fixed salary of Rs.200 
per month. The petitioners are given a deliberate break of one day in 
their service after the lapse of every six months and have thus been 
treated temporary in serviee. The second scheme, known as the State 
Social Education Scheme, .bas been framed by the State of Haryana. 
Under Ibis scheme Social Education Centres have been opened in the 
State and teachers known as Squad Teachers appointed at these centres 
to impart literacy among the illiterates. The State regularised the 
services of the Squad Teachers working on ad-hoc basis with effect from 
1.1.1980 and sanctioned them pay scale of Rs.420-700, the scale appli-
cable to primary school teachers in the State. 
The Petitioners' grievance is that although Ibey are performing 
the same nature of functions and duties as performed by the Squad 
Teachers, they are denied the same scale of pay. The petitioners pray 
for the issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents (i) to 
treat them in continuous service irrespective of the deliberate breaks in 
their service, (ii) to grant them regular pay scales of the Primary School 
Teachers pins consequential benefitS from the date of their initial 
appointment, and (iii) to treat the Department of Adult Education and 
Non-formal Education as a permanent department and to regularise the 
411 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A services of the petitioners in that Department. 
The claim of the petitioners is based on the doctrine of 'equal 
work equal pay'. The petiti11ners contend that (i) the two schemes are 
similaP and the nature of duties and functions performed by instructors 
are similar to those performed by squad teachers, (ii) the instructors as. 
B well as the Squad Teachers are both appointed by the District Adult 
Education Officer and function under the supervision of the Directorate 
of Education, (iii) the iI1structors are full time employees and take 
regular classes of students in the age group of 5-15 years for two and a. 
half hours and of adult illiterates in the age-group of 15-35 years for one 
and a half hours. In addition, they have to motivate the children and the 
C adults. to join the Adult Education Centres. They are further required(tO 
submit regular survey reports. 
The respondents, on the other band, urge that the functions and 
duties of the instructors and the squad teachers are quite different. The 
main points of distinction relied upon are that (i) the instructors are 
D appointed part time while squad teachers are in full time employment, 
(ii) the squad teachers are transferable while instructors are not, (iii) 
the squad teachers are.required to teach 7 hours daily while instructors 
are required to teach for four hours, (iv) the social education scheme is 
permanent and squad teachers are working under a permanent scheme 
while the instructors are working under a temporary scheme, and (v) 
E the qualifications and the mode of recruitment of instructors are diffe-
rent; while the instructors are appointed locally, the squad teachers are 
selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board after competing 
with candidates from any part of the country. It is emphasized that if a 
regular selection was held, many of the Instructors may not have been 
appointed. 
F 
Earlier, this court had in Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana, 
[1987] 4 SCC 634 upheld the claim of the Supervisors appointed to 
supervise the centres at which instruc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.