K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND ORS. versus SHRI VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 21-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF 
ENGINEERING AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 21, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
Non-teaching staff of private college-Lab Assistants-Appointed on 
daily wages-Claim for equal pay for equal work on par with other Govern- . 
ment employees-Writ petition before High Court-Held is main-
tainable-They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government 
employees under Article 39 ( d) of the Constitution. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 39 (d) and 226-Equal pay for equal work-Teachers of private 
college not in receipt of grant-in-aid--Held, are entitled to seek enforcement 
of orders issued by Government by availing remedy under Article 226-Writ 
E petition is maintainable-They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par 
with Government employees under Article 39(d). 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 
1997. 
p 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A.No. 179 of 1996. 
L.N. Rao, V,S. Reddy and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants. 
B. Parthasarthy for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High 
H 
Cou~t of Andhra Pradesh, made on April 23, 1996 in W.A. No.179of1996. 
368 
l
-
K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU v. VENKATESWAR HINDU COLLEGEOFENGG. 
369 
The admitted position is that the appellant and six others had been A 
appointed on daily wages to the post of Lab. Assistants as non-teaching 
staff of the respondent-private college. They were being paid daily wages. 
Writ petition and appeal seeking equal pay having been dismissed, they 
have filed the present appeal for direction to pay them equal pay for equal 
work on par with the other Government employees. 
B 
It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Govern-
ment have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on par 
with the Government employees. The question is: when there is no 
statutory rule issued in that behalf, and the Institution, at the relevant time, C 
being not in receipt of any grant-in-aid; whether the writ petition under" 
Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable? In view of the long line 
of decisions of this Court holding that when there is an interest created by 
the Government in an Institution to impart education, which is a fundamen-
tal right of the citizens, the teachers who teach the education gets an D 
element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a conse-
quence, the element of public interest requires to regulate the conditions 
of service of those employees on par with Government employees. In 
consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as 
per the executive instructions of the Government? It is not also in dispute E 
that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant had 
later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-
Management paid the salaries on par with the Government employees. 
Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through 
the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of 
the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities F 
to the people to avail of the right to education. The private institutions 
cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teacher duly . 
appointed to a post in the private institution aiso is entitled to seek 
enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as 
to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the G 
remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element 
of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, 
the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail of the remedy 
provided under Article 226; the jurisdiction part is very wide. It would be 
pifferent position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we 
hold that the writ petition is maintainable. They are entitled to equal pay 
so as to be on par with Government. employees under Article 39( d) of the 
Constitution. 
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ is is

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