S.C. CHANDRA AND ORS versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 21-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
S.C. CHANDRA AND ORS. 
~-
. 
v. 
.~ ' 
' I 
ST~TE OF J.I-IARKHAND AND ORS. 
1. 
".f. 
: AUGUST 21, 2007 
[AK.MA THURAND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
t ~, 
. Bihar N?n-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management 
and Control) Act, 1981-ss. 2(d), 3 and 19: 
Proprietary school-HCL, a Government enterprise was giving financial • 
aid to it-Due to financial difficulties, HCL stopped financial aid-Teachers 
and staff working in the school did not get salaries-They filed writ petitfon 
before High Court seeking writ of mandamus against the management of 
HCL-Held: Giving financial assistance does not necessarily mean that all 
D teachers and staff working in the school became employees of HCL-School 
was not run by management of HCL which merely provided funds-Hence, 
no writ of mandamus could be issued against the management of HCL to 
provide relief to the teachers and staff of the school-Alternative plea for 
issuance of mandamus to State Government to take over management of the 
school also not tenable since there was no such request from Managing 
E Committee of the school-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Service 
Law-Employer-employee relationship. 
Proprietary school-Respondent-company (BCCL) providing funds to 
it-Teachers of the school seeking pay parity with clerks working in 
Respondent-company-Held: Respondent-company was only extending 
F financial assistance-School was essentially managed by a body independent 
of the management of Respondent-company-Therefore, Respondent-company 
cannot be saddled with the responsibilities of granting the teachers salaries 
equated to that of the clerks working in Respondent-company-Principle of 
equal pay for equal work not applicable, since the two groups viz. teachers 
G and the clerks in Respondent-company are not identical-There is no question 
of pay parity, more so when the teachers are not employees of Respondent-
company-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 39(d)-Service Law-Equal 
pay for equal work. 
HCL, a Government Enterprise, used to provide financial aid to a 
H 
130 
.. 
J 
S.C. CHANDRA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 
131 
proprietary school as defined in Section 2(d) of the Bihar Non-Government A 
Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. Most 
employees of HCL were in Managing Committee of the said school. The 
management ofHCL however came to be closed on account of financial stress, 
consequently no financial aid could be extended to the school and the teachers 
as well as the non-teaching staff of the school could not get their salaries. 
They filed writ petition before High Court seeking relief. The petition was B 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court the questions which arose for consideration are 
1) Whether the management of the school was the direct responsibility of 
HCL and a writ of mandamus could be issued against it and that 2) Whether, C 
even if the school is not a part of the management of HCL, a direction could 
be given to the State Government under the Act of 1981 to take over 
management of the school. 
In the connected set of appeals, teachers of a proprietary school sought 
pay parity with the clerks of Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) which used D 
to provide financial assistance to the school from time to time. The question 
which arose for consideration before this Court is whether the claim of pay 
parity was tenable. 
Dismissing all the appeals, the Court 
HELD (Per A.K. Mathur, J.J: 
1.1. Though through various communications an impression was sought 
to be given that the school is being run by the HCL but in substance the HCL 
only used to provide financial assistance to the school and the management of 
E 
the school was entirely different than the management of the HCL. Giving F 
financial assistance does not necessarily mean that all the teachers and staff 
who are working in the school have become the employees of the HCL. 
Therefore, there was no relationship of the management of the HCL with the 
management of the school though most of the employees of the HCL were in 
the managing committee of the school. But by that no inference can be drawn G 
that the school had been established by the HCL. The children of workers of 
HCL were being benefited by the education imparted by this school. Therefore, 
the management of HCL was giving financial aid but by that it cannot be 
construed that the school was run by the management of HCL. 
(Para 5) [136-E, F, G) 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORT

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