UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC versus TEJRAM PARASHRAMJJ BOMBHATE AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 03-05-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
TEJRAM PARASHRAMJJ BOMBHATE AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 3, 1991 
-I 
[K.JAGANNATHASHETIY ANDYOGESHWARDAYAL,JJ.] 
B 
Civil Service: Primary School catering to education needs of 
children of employees in ordnance factories-Teachers paid honora-
rium not full salary out of school fees-Teachers cannot claim pay scale 
of Government School Teachers-Central Administrative Tribunal can-
~-
not compel government to assess needs of school and create necessary 
posts. 
c 
The appellant i.e. the Central Government sanctioned primary 
school from classes I· V to cater to the educational needs of children of 
persons employed in the ordnance factory at Ambazari. The employees 
on their own in the same premises opened a secondary• school with 
D 
classes VI to X. The respondents are teache~s in the Secondary School 
and are being paid out of fees and other donations received by the 
.. 
school, They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking 
regularisation of their sernces and demanded equal pay for equal 
work. 
E 
The Tribunal allowed their claim with certain directions to the 
appellants including the Union of India i.e. directing the Central 
Government immediately to take up an assessment of the needs of the 
School to carry on its activities at the present level and to create a 
_,-->-
sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis. The Tri-
bun~! further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up F 
the newly created posts in accordance with recruitment rules to be 
framed for the purpose. 
Allowing Civil appeal No. 233 of 1991 of the Union of India, and 
setting aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing Civil Appeal No. 480 
of 1989 of the respondents who have not been recruited as per direction G 
of the Tribunal, the Court. 
j 
HELD: 1. There is no evidence in record that respondents were 
appointed as teachers on honorarium by or on behalf of the Central 
Government. There is no evidence that they were initially appointed in 
primary School and later shifted to the Secondary School. It is undls· 
H 
685 
A 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
puted that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary 
School nor created any posts thereto. It had only sanctioned the Primary 
School and the posts connected therewith which are being occupied by 
regularly recruited teachers. [688A-B] 
2. The directions of the Tribunal are indeed amazing compelling 
B the Central Government to sanction the Secondary School. The Central 
Government has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in sanc-
tioning or running classes beynnd the Primary School level. It is a policy 
matter involving fmancial burden. No Court or the Tribunal could 
compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure. [688D-E] 
c 
3. The respondents are not paid by the Central Government. 
There is no relationship of master and servant between the Central 
Government and the respondents. The respondents are employed by the 
local officers so how the Central Government is accountable. [688G) 
4. Even section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 con-
D fers no jurisdiction, power or authority on the Tribunal to deal with the 
service matters of the employees like the respondents. The respondents 
cannot claim the pay-scale admissible to the Government school 
~ 
teachers and much less regularisation of their services by the Central 
Government. [688H-689A] 
E 
5. The directions of the Tribunal are apparently unjustified and 
without authority of law so cannot be sustained. [ 688F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 233 
of 1991 etc. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.1988 of the Central 
G 
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in O.A. No. 58 of 1988. 
V.C. Mahajan, S.N. Terdal, A.K. Srivastava, C.Y. Subba Rao, 
S.K. Gambhir, Dr. B.L. Wadhera, Sudarshan Menon, P. Parames-h-
waran and G.D. Gupta for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. To cater to the educational 
needs of children of persons employed in the ordnance factory at 
Ambazari the Central Government has sanctioned and is running a 
H 
Primary School from classes I to V. In the same premises, the emp-
-.. 
U.0.1. v. T.P. BOMBHATE [SHETTY, J.] 
687 
loyees of the ordnance factory, by their own arrangement are also 
having a Secondary School with classes VI to X. They have appointed 
the respondents as teachers in the Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.