STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. versus THE BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE, MUNGER & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 39 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
v.
THE BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE
COMMITTEE, MUNGER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4862 of 2019 etc.)
MAY 10, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT. JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay parity/’Equal pay for equal work’ – Sought by Niyojit
Teachers[appointed under Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers
(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006] – With the cadre
of Government teachers – Permissibility – Held: The cadre of
Government teachers with which parity is sought was a dying/
vanishing cadre – The mode of recruitment of Niyojit teachers was
completely different from that of the Government teachers – A pay
structure is normally evolved keeping in mind factors such as
‘method of recruitment’ and ‘employer’s capacity to pay’ – The
distinction in process of recruitment is one of the limitations/
qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ – The advances made by State on the front of spreading
education to the remotest corner of the State was possible only by
rational use of resources of the State – Best utilisation of resources
and which factors are to be emphasized more, are policy matters –
The attempt of the State in making over the process of selection to
Panchayati Raj Institutions and letting the cadre of State teachers
to be dying or vanishing cadre were part of the mechanism for
achieving object of spreading education and were part of integrated
policy – Judicial intervention in such matters can create tremendous
imbalance and cause great strain on budgetary resources – Thus,
there has been no violation of the rights of Niyojit Teachers nor
has there been any discrimination against them – Constitution of
India – Art.21 – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009.
Doctrine:
Doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ – Applicability of.
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 738
738
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per U. U. Lalit, J. :
1.  The cadre of Government Teachers with which parity or
equality has been sought by Niyojit Teachers [appointed under
Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2006] is a dying or a vanishing cadre.  A
conscious decision was taken by the State not to make any
appointments in this cadre of Government Teachers and post
2006, with the exception all appointments in the State have been
in terms of and under the provisions of 2006 Rules. The statistics
also show that presently there are about 57,293 elementary
teachers in the cadre of Government Teachers and 7,800
Government Teachers at the secondary level which means there
are about 66,000 Government teachers in the State as against
nearly 4 lakh Niyojit Teachers in the State.  It is this group of 4
lakhs which is seeking parity with a number which is less than 1/
5th and by very nature which is a dying and vanishing cadre. Out
of those 66,000, more than 31,000 were those who came to be
appointed as one-time exception.  Leaving aside that issue, the
fact remains that it is a larger body of more than 4 lakhs which is
seeking parity with a dying or a vanishing cadre.  [Para 58]
[822-D-G]
2. This Court has accepted following limitations or
qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for
equal work’:- (i) The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not
an abstract doctrine. (ii) The principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ has no mechanical application in every case. (iii) The very
fact that the person has not gone through the process of
recruitment may itself, in certain cases, makes a difference. (iv)
The application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’
requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job.(v)
Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be
evaluated and determined by an expert body.  These are not
matters where a writ court can lightly interfere.(vi) Granting pay
scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should
not interfere with the same.  It may have a cascading effect creating
all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. (vii)
Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be
STATE OF BIHAR v. THE BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE
COMMITTEE, MUNGER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
left to an expert body. (viii) Granting of pay parity by the court
may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have
adverse c

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