STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ETC. versus MONLRUJJAMAN MULLICK AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 749 · Decided: 19-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
MONlRUJJAMAN MULLICK AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 19, 1996 
jKULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHlR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
Se1vice Law : 
Educational institulions--lnstructors of 11011-fonnal education centres 
in State of West Bengal-Claim for scales of pay as admissible to p1imwy 
C 
school teachers-Held, cannot M allowed as apmt from basic qualitative 
differences bettt.:een the t1vo institutions, even t/ze nature of wo1k of instntctors 
of non- Jonna! education centres and the prbna1y school teachers is not 
identical-Constitution of India A1t. 39(d)-Equal pay for equal wm*. 
The respondents \\'ere Vi'orking as instructors in various non-formal D 
education centres in the State of West Bengal. The said centres were 
opened by the State Government implementing the Scheme of the Central 
Government to impart non-formal education to the children in the age 
group of 9/11 year belonging to Vt'eaker sections of society. These centres 
\Vere part~time institutions and the instructors were engaged to teach the E 
children for two hours a day on a fixfd honorarium of Rs. 105 per n1onth 
at the p'rimary level and Rs. 125 per month at the upper primary level. The 
instructors filed a writ petition in the High Court,claiming same scales of 
pay and allowances as \\'ere admissible and \Vere being paid to primary 
school teachers, on the basis of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 
The High Court decided i'1 favour of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved, the F 
State filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The non-formal education centres cannot be equated with 
the primary schools which are regularly run by the Education Department G 
of the State Government. Apart from the basic qualitative differences 
between the two institutions, even the nature of work of the instructors of 
non-formal institutions and the primary school teachers is not identical. 
The method of appointment, the source of recruitment, method of teach· 
ing, hours of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. Jn H 
749 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996[ SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court fell into patent 
error in applying the principle ul' "equal pay for e11ual work". The judg-
ments of the High Co1;rt are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the 
instructors shall stand dismissed. (753-B-C; F-GJ 
Deihi Development Ho1ticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administra-
B tion, Delhi and 01'·., [1992] 4 sec 99, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Ci,il Appeal No. 4195 of 
1994 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.93 of the Calcutta High 
C Court in A. No. 367 or 1991. 
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, M.S. Gujral, J.K. Mitter, Syed Ali 
Ahmad, Mohan Pandey, J. Kar, Rana Mukherjee, Goodwill Indeevar, R.N. 
Tripathi, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Vijay Panjwani and Ms. Indira Sawhney for 
D the appearing parties. 
The Judgment/ Order of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. 
Monirujjaman Mullick and other private 
respondents, in the appeal herein) were \Vorking as instructors in various 
E non-formal education centres in different districts in the State of West 
Bengal. They approached the High Court by way of a petition under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction - based on the 
principle of "equal pay for equal work" - that they were entitled to the same 
scales of pay and allowances as were admissible and being paid to the 
primary school teachers. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed 
F writ petition. Appeal filed by the Slate of West Bengal was disposed of 
with the following directions : 
G 
H 
11The writ petitioners who are not in regular employment elsewhere 
and who have the minimum qualification prescribed for the 
primary school teachers arc entitled to the same scale of pay and 
allowances as admissible to the primary school teachers from the 
date of their initi:tl appointment and further that they are also 
entitled to annual increments in the pay-scale in accordance with 
law; but their claim for absorption in the department as regular 
primary school teachers cannot be sustained and therefore stands 
rejected. 
STATE v. M.MULLICK[KULDIP S!NGH.J.] 
751 
It is made clear that the services of such non-formal teachers will A 
be liable to stand automatically terminated as and when the non-
formal education scheme is discontinued in this State. 
Persons similarly placed should also be given the same bc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.