UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 04-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND ORS. 
MARCH 4, I 998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Fixation of higher pay scales as recommended by National Commission 
for teachers-Respondents, primary school teachers under Dandakaranya C 
Development Project (DDP) of Ministry of Home Affairs-Rendered surplus on 
handing over of the schools to the state government-Taken on the roll of 
Central surplus Staff Cell- Later, on respondents were relieved from the 
Surplus Cell and redeployed in post in various non- teaching cadres in 
various department and offices of Central Government - National Commission's D 
Report accepted by the Central Government vide Circular dated 12-8-1987 
w.ef 1-1-1986-Nothing on record to show the exclusion of the respondents 
from entitlement of the benefits contained in the said report-Held, 
respondents entitled to the benefit of the recommendation of the National 
Commission w.e.fl-1-1986-Denial of such benefit to respondents would be 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-Constitution of India, Article E 
14-Arbitrariness---Government of India MHRD (Dept. of Edu.) Circular No. 
F-5-180186-UT-J-dated 12-8-1987. 
CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990-Framed in exercise 
of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in 
Suppression of Redeployment of Surplus Staff against Vacancies in the Central F 
Civil Sen•ice and Posts (Group 'C') Rules, 1967-Redeployment of Surplus 
Staff against Vacancies in the Central Civil Service and Posts (Group 'D ') 
Rules, 1970--Redeployment of Surplus Staff against Vacancies in the Central 
Civil Services and Posts (Group 'A' and 'B') Rules, 1986-Redep/oyment of 
Surplus Staff in the Central Civil Service and Posts (Supplementary) Rules, G 
1989-Framed for regulating redeployment and readjustment of surplus staff 
against vacancies in the Central Civil Service and Posts-Rule 2(g)- "surplus 
staff' and "surplus employees"-To mean the Central Civil Servants (other 
then those employed on ad hoc casual, work-charged or contract basis)-
Rule 2(g)(b)(3) refers to such employees who have been rendered surplus 
along with the post from the ministries, departments, offices of the Government H 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A of India, as a result of abolition and winding up either in whole or in part 
of dtl organisation of the Central Government. 
The respondent were initially appointed as primary school teachers 
under the l:>andakaranya Development Project (DDP) in the Ministry of 
Home Affairs from 1966 onwards. As a result of the policy decision by the 
B Central Government, to handover all the aforesaid schools under the DDP 
to the State Governments, and other employees rendered surplus were taken 
on roll of Central Surplus Staff Cell of the Department of Personnel and 
Training vide order dated 28-4-1986. In pursuance of this, respondents were 
transferred to the surplus staff cell w.e.f. 1-4-1986. Thereafter they were re-
C deployed in the various departments and the offices of the Central Government 
Subsequently, the respondents were relived from the surplus cell w.e.f. 22-
9-1986 onwards to join the new postings in various non-teaching carders. 
These respondents were given the pay scales as recommended by the 3rd and 
4th pay Commission. A Commission called Chattopadhyay Commission was 
appointed to give recommendation for the teachers and the grievance of the 
D respondents were that they were not given the benefit of this Commission, 
which was accepted by the Government by way of issuing a Circular dated 
12-8-1987. 
E 
F 
G 
The claims of the r~spondents were denied by the appellants but the 
same was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence this Appeal. 
The main contention of the appellants was that the respondents were 
neither Govei:nment servants nor the National Commission Report was 
applicable to all the teachers. It was also submitted that the Circular dated 
12-8-1987 was not applicable only the teachers working under DDP. It was 
applicable to such departments which have accepted its report It was further 
submitted education being a State subject and the schools under DDP having 
been transferred to the State Government concerned, teachers under it 
would be benefited when the State Government accepted the report. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The respondents are entitled to receive the benefit of the 
recommendation o

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