Equal Pay for Equal Work: Ensuring Fair Treatment for Niyojit Teachers

The Supreme Court’s recent judgement on equal pay for Niyojit Teachers highlights the importance of fair treatment and salary parity in the education sector. The case brought by Niyojit Teachers sought recognition of their rights to ‘equal pay for equal work’ as established by the Constitution. This judgement sets a precedent for ensuring just compensation and equality for all educators, paving the way for a more equitable education system in India.

Facts

• The High Court allowed petitions seeking the same salaries and emoluments for teachers on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
• As a result, all teaching and non-teaching staff were granted salaries at Government scales, leading to a need for more teachers to meet obligations.
• The State challenges the High Court’s decision, contending the requirement to induct a large number of teachers is unjust.
• A fund for secondary education was formed under Sections 11 and 12, aimed at paying salaries and allowances to teachers and staff.
• Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983 were established by the State to regulate the service conditions of teachers at different levels in nationalized schools.
• The Rules specified minimum qualifications for various teaching categories, with the Director of Education of the State Government having control over the nationalized schools.
• Section 10 of the Act focused on the establishment of the School Service Board, responsible for appointing teachers and Head Masters in nationalized schools.
• The Rules outlined service conditions for Head Masters, teachers of different categories, and non-teaching staff like clerks and peons.
• In 1981, the Bihar Government took over management and control of non-Government Secondary Schools, nationalizing them except for Minority and specific types of schools.
• Consequently, all employees of these schools became State Government employees, with rules regarding appointment, permission, and disciplinary actions being established.
• The petitioners are entitled to ‘equal pay for equal work’.
• The respondents are directed to fix the pay-scale of the petitioners like regular teachers of the nationalized school.
• The pay-scale revision should be effective from the initial date of appointment notionally and actual payment from the date of filing the writ application.
• Rule 8 is held to be inoperative, ineffective, and inapplicable as it is deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Article 14 of the Constitution with regards to the Niyojit Shikshak.
• The recommended grant for elementary education for all states amounts to Rs.24,068 crore.
• The pay-scale of the petitioners is to be revised according to the principles of pay revision under the recommendation of the 7th Pay Revision for the Niyojit Shikshak.
• The revision of pay-scale must be done notionally from the date of appointment and actual payment from the date of filing of the writ petitions.
• The revision process should be completed within three months, and the monetary benefits must be paid within a further three months.

Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application in Different Cases: Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court of India

Issue

• The main issues framed during the judgment were related to the consistency of Rules 6 and 8 of Rules 2006 with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The question of whether Niyojit Teachers are entitled to equal pay for equal work at par with teachers appointed in nationalized schools prior to the enforcement of the 2006 Rules was also a crucial point of consideration.
• The judgement aimed to determine if the above issues violated Article 14 of the Constitution or if they were in line with it.

Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel

Arguments

• The petitioners argued that under Section 26 of the RTE Act, the vacancy position of teachers could not exceed 10%, and the state must appoint teachers in sufficient numbers to match the Pupil-Teacher ratio.
• The State’s excuse of budgetary constraints was deemed unacceptable by the petitioners.
• References were made to court decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others, and Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of West Bengal and Others to support the argument for equal pay for Niyojit Teachers.
• The petitioners emphasized that financial difficulty cannot be used as a reason to oppose Niyojit Teachers’ rightful demand for equal pay for equal work.
• The obligation to raise funds was on the State, and budgetary constraints were not a valid argument.
• Education is crucial for societal advancement, and the State’s failure to provide non-discriminatory treatment to its teachers was highlighted.
• The role of Niyojit Teachers, their qualifications, experience, and duties were compared to Government Teachers to argue for equal treatment.
• The petitioners pointed out that the State had failed to discharge its duty in ensuring equality for teachers as mandated by the Constitution and Article 21A.
• Various court decisions and constitutional provisions were cited to support the petitioners’ argument for equal pay and treatment for Niyojit Teachers.
• The petitioners urged the court to address the disparity and inequality perpetuated by the State and ensure fair treatment for all teachers.
• Learned counsel for the respondent did not rely on the reasoning of the High Court judges in the case under appeal.
• Budgetary constraints were not considered a valid ground for not fulfilling constitutional obligations.
• The key questions for consideration are the entitlement of Niyojit Teachers to ‘equal pay for equal work’ and the justification of the State in making the alleged fair distinctions.

Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals

Analysis

• The State of Bihar implemented The Bihar State Free and Compulsory Education of Children Rules, 2011 in accordance with the RTE Act.
• The Rules emphasized the establishment of primary schools within 1 km of all habitations with a minimum of 40 children aged 6-14 years.
• The Rules also focused on creating a cadre of teachers with specific qualifications and conditions of service to ensure accountability and long-term stake in the teaching profession.
• The Constitution amendments, specifically the 73rd and 74th Amendments, mandated the establishment of Panchayats and Municipalities at various levels to empower local self-government.
• The Eleventh Schedule under the 74th Amendment included ‘Education’ as one of the responsibilities of Panchayats for economic and social development.
• The RTE Act highlighted the duties of the appropriate Government and Local Authority in establishing schools within specified areas and ensuring financial responsibilities were shared between the Central and State Governments.
• The Act also outlined the qualifications for teachers, pupil-teacher ratio maintenance, and the rights to education for children aged 6-14 years.
• The Central Government was empowered to issue directions, and the appropriate Government could make rules under Section 38 of the RTE Act.
• The Act defined terms like ‘appropriate Government’, ‘elementary education’, and ‘school’ to provide clarity on the education system.
• The Rules also addressed the identification of neighbourhood schools, transportation arrangements for children with disabilities, and the creation of a professional cadre of teachers with specified salary and conditions of service.
• Part VI of the 2010 Rules focused on the role of teachers and emphasized the notification of terms and conditions for the creation of a professional and permanent cadre of teachers.
• Article 243W of the Constitution highlighted the powers, authority, and responsibilities of Municipalities in education administration.
• The Rules and Acts collectively aimed to ensure universal access to quality education for children and promote the development of a dedicated and qualified teaching workforce.
• Higher qualifications for the higher grade supports classification of officers into two grades with different pay scales.
• Granting parity in pay scales depends on the evaluation of job and equation of posts.
• Mere nomenclature designating a person’s job title is not enough to conclude they are doing the same work as another person with the same title in regular service.
• Questions concerning wages are vital and significant to the people, and the principle of equal pay for equal work holds importance in such matters.
• Application of the principle of equal pay for equal work requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job.
• Budgetary constraints cannot be a ground for violating Fundamental Rights.
• The interpretation of the RTE Act should prioritize making the Right available under Article 21A a reality, especially for children.
• Free and Compulsory Education should be of quality, but that does not necessarily mean Niyojit Teachers must be paid the same as State Teachers.
• The modalities for securing expert teachers, such as better pay or exams like TET, are for the Executive to determine.
• There has been no violation of Niyojit Teachers’ Rights or discrimination against them.
• The State’s efforts have been fair and not discriminatory, with continuous improvements in packages for Niyojit Teachers.
• The State has made significant progress in education, with literacy rates and girl child education improving.
• Directions by the High Court may disrupt the State’s progress in narrowing the gap between Government and Niyojit Teachers.
• The initial disparity in emoluments for Niyojit Teachers compared to peons and clerks is concerning.
• After two years of service, the proposed enhancements for Niyojit Teachers show some improvement in scales compared to peons and clerks.
• Although the State is entitled to devise pay structures, an imbalance as presented raises concern for decent emoluments for teachers.
• The process of selection and promotion mechanisms were part of the State’s efforts to spread education effectively.

Decision

• The State may consider raising the scales of Niyojit Teachers as suggested by the Committee without requiring any test or examination.
• Those who clear the test or examination may be given better scales.
• The suggestion for raising the scales is open for the State’s consideration.
• The appeals by the State are allowed, and the judgment under appeal is set aside.
• The writ petitions by Niyojit Teachers are dismissed.
• Appreciation is expressed to all the learned counsel for their assistance in the matters.

Case Title: THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. THE BIHAR SECONDARY TEACHERS STRUGGLE COMMITTEE MUNGER

Case Number: C.A. No.-004862-004862 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement