Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay for Bihar Teachers Based on Recruitment Method: State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) INSC 4862 (10 May 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 4862
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (Majority Opinion by Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Concurring Opinion by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.)
Can teachers who were appointed through local bodies claim equal pay with those who were directly appointed by the State government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning teachers in Bihar. The court examined whether teachers appointed through different methods but performing similar duties are entitled to the same pay scale. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the State’s policy of differential pay scales based on the method of recruitment, citing the State’s need to balance financial constraints with the goal of universal education.

Case Background

In 1981, the State of Bihar nationalized all non-Government Secondary Schools, taking over their management and control. This led to all teaching and non-teaching staff receiving salaries and emoluments at the government scale. However, with the advent of schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the introduction of Article 21A in the Constitution, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the State needed to induct a large number of teachers. These teachers, employed at Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, and Municipal levels, were not given the same salaries and emoluments as teachers paid at the government scale.

The Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, took over the management of non-Government Secondary Schools, making their staff employees of the State Government. The Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983, prescribed service conditions and minimum qualifications for various categories of teachers and non-teaching staff.

The Constitution (73rd and 74th Amendment) Acts, 1992, introduced Panchayats and Municipalities, devolving powers and responsibilities related to education to these local bodies. The Constitution (86th Amendment Act, 2002) inserted Article 21A, making education a fundamental right. In 2006, the 1981 Act was amended, removing the Director’s role in teacher appointments.

In May 2006, the State prepared draft notes for the Cabinet proposing decentralized appointments of teachers through Panchayati Raj institutions with fixed salaries. This led to the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, which created two grades of teachers: Block Teachers and Panchayat Teachers, employed on fixed pay. Simultaneously, rules were framed for teachers in urban and rural areas, also on fixed pay, with the responsibility for appointment given to local bodies.

The Right to Education Act, 2009, came into force on 1st April 2010, mandating free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14. The Bihar State Free and Compulsory Education of Children Rules, 2011, were framed to implement the Act. In 2012, the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Services Conditions) Rules, 2012, were introduced, specifying consolidated pay for teachers. Despite these new rules, some teachers were appointed under the old rules in 2013 following a Supreme Court order.

Aggrieved by differential treatment, various teacher associations filed writ petitions seeking equal pay for equal work, which were initially dismissed by a Single Judge but later allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially dismissed a writ petition filed by Parivartankari Prarambhik Shikshak Sangh, which contended that Panchayat elementary teachers were entitled to the same pay scales as government teachers. The Single Judge held that the State had the discretion to decide the service conditions and pay scales for teachers appointed under the 2006 Rules. However, later, several other writ petitions were filed, challenging the differential treatment of Niyojit Teachers. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the lead matter of CWJC 21199 of 2013, allowed these petitions, holding that the Niyojit Teachers were entitled to equal pay for equal work. The High Court directed the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioners like regular teachers with effect from the initial date of appointment notionally and actual payment with effect from 8.12.2009.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions considered in this case include:

• The Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981: This act nationalized non-government secondary schools, bringing their management under the State.
• The Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983: These rules prescribed the service conditions for teachers and other staff in nationalized schools.
• Article 243G of the Constitution: This article empowers Panchayats with responsibilities for education, including primary and secondary schools.
• Article 243W of the Constitution: This article empowers Municipalities with responsibilities related to education.
• Article 21A of the Constitution: This article makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14.
• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: This act provides a framework for implementing the right to education.
• The Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006: These rules established the framework for employing teachers at the Panchayat level on fixed pay.
• The Bihar Municipal Body Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006: These rules established the framework for employing teachers in urban areas on fixed pay.
• The Bihar District Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006: These rules established the framework for employing teachers in rural areas on fixed pay.
• The Bihar State Free and Compulsory Education of Children Rules, 2011: These rules were framed to implement the RTE Act in Bihar.
• The Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Services Conditions) Rules, 2012: These rules prescribed the consolidated pay for teachers.
• Section 6 of the RTE Act: This section mandates the appropriate government and local authority to establish schools within prescribed areas.
• Section 7 of the RTE Act: This section outlines the sharing of financial and other responsibilities between the Central and State Governments.
• Section 23 of the RTE Act: This section deals with qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.
• Section 25 of the RTE Act: This section deals with Pupil-Teacher Ratio.
• Rule 20 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010: This rule deals with the salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers.

The legal framework highlights the constitutional mandate for education and the devolution of educational responsibilities to local bodies, alongside the creation of new employment rules for teachers.

Arguments

On behalf of the Appellants (State of Bihar):

• The State argued that the teachers appointed before 2006 and the Niyojit Teachers appointed under the 2006 Rules were different categories. The former were part of a dying cadre, and the latter were appointed at local levels.
• The State contended that applying the pay scales of the dying cadre to over four lakh Niyojit Teachers would impose an immense economic burden.
• The State emphasized its constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education, which required spreading educational opportunities within its limited resources.
• The State argued that the policy of decentralizing teacher appointments to Panchayats was a valid constitutional option.
• The State submitted that it had been progressively improving the pay scales and emoluments of Niyojit Teachers, and that comparing their present scales with those of a dying cadre was unjustified.
• The State highlighted the significant increase in girls’ enrollment and reduction in the total fertility rate due to its educational policies.
• The State argued that the concept of “equal pay for equal work” was not applicable in this case, as the teachers were recruited through different processes and had different service conditions.
• The State relied upon cases such as Tarsem Lal Gautam and anotherr. vs. State Bank of Patiala and others [ (1989) 1 SCC 182 ], V. Markendeya and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [ (1989) 3 SCC 191 ], Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (1990) 2 SCC 396 ], Secretary, Finance Department and others vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others [ 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 ], State of U.P. and others vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh [ (1998) 1 SCC 422 ], State of Haryana and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [ (2002) 6 SCC 72 ] and S.C. Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 ] to support their arguments that different modes of recruitment and different cadres could justify different pay scales.

On behalf of the Respondents (Niyojit Teachers):

• The Niyojit Teachers argued that they were working in the same nationalized schools, discharging the same functions as government teachers.
• They contended that the distinction between the two categories was unreasonable and that they were entitled to equal pay for equal work.
• They argued that the RTE Act placed a responsibility on the State to provide quality education, which included ensuring fair compensation for teachers.
• They submitted that financial constraints could not be a valid reason to deny them their rightful demands.
• They highlighted that both categories of teachers were teaching the same syllabus, in the same schools, and performing similar duties.
• They relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others [ (2017) 1 SCC 148 ], Jaipal and others vs. State of Haryana and others [ AIR 1988 SC 1504 ], Dhirendra Chamoli and Another vs. State of U.P [ (1986) 1 SCC 637 ] and Bhagwan Dass and others vs. State of Haryana and others [ (1987) 4 SCC 634 ] to support their claim for equal pay.

On behalf of the Union of India:

• The Union of India submitted that the teachers appointed before 2006 and the Niyojit Teachers formed separate cadres from different streams and that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” required wholesale identicality.
• The Union of India argued that the Central Government was not obligated to provide 60% of the State’s education budget and that the State of Bihar was receiving the second-highest funds under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
• The Union of India relied upon State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh [ 1963 Suppl. 2 SCR 169 ] and Zabar Singh and others vs. the State of Haryana and others [ (1972) 2 SCC 275 ], Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs. Union of India & Ors. [ AIR 1962 SC 1139 ] and Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others [ (1982) 1 SCC 618 ], State of Haryana and others vs. Jasmer Singh and others [ (1996) 11 SCC 77 ], State of U.P. and others vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh [ (1998) 1 SCC 422 ], Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another vs. Manoj K K Mohanty [ (2003) 5 SCC 188 ], Government of W. B. vs. Tarun K. Roy and others [ (2004) 1 SCC 347 ], State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and Others [ (2006) 9 SCC 321 ] and S.C. Chandra and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 ] to argue that different modes of recruitment and different cadres could justify different pay scales.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Niyojit Teachers are right in their submission that they are entitled to and were rightly granted ‘equal pay for equal work’; and
2. Whether the State is justified in its approach and is right in claiming that the distinction made by it was correct and fair.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the State was justified in maintaining different pay scales for Niyojit Teachers and Government Teachers, given the different modes of recruitment and the State’s need to balance financial constraints with the goal of universal education. The Court emphasized that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and requires consideration of various factors, including the mode of recruitment, qualifications, and nature of duties.

The Court noted that the Niyojit Teachers were not recruited through the same process as the Government Teachers and that the State had a valid reason for maintaining two different cadres. The Court also observed that the State had made significant strides in improving access to education and literacy rates, and that imposing equal pay for all teachers would create a tremendous strain on budgetary resources.

The Court noted that while the Niyojit Teachers were performing similar duties, they were recruited under different rules and through different selection processes. The Court further observed that the State had a policy of letting the cadre of Government Teachers be a dying cadre and that all future appointments would be through the new rules. The Court also observed that the State was within its right to have two different cadres and that the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be applied in such cases.

The Supreme Court, however, suggested that the State consider raising the initial pay scales of Niyojit Teachers to ensure they receive decent emoluments, at least to the level suggested by the Three Member Committee, without insisting on any test or examination advised by the Committee. Those who clear such test or examination, may be given even better scales.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre delivered a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority’s conclusion but providing additional reasoning. He emphasized the State’s obligation to provide free and compulsory education but also highlighted the State’s right to make policy decisions regarding the allocation of resources. Justice Sapre noted that the State had made significant efforts to improve educational access and that the Niyojit Teachers were recruited through a different process. He also agreed that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply mechanically and that the State’s classification was reasonable.

Justice Sapre further observed that the State had a legitimate interest in implementing the RTE Act and that the policy of engaging Niyojit Teachers was a reasonable measure to achieve universal education. He noted that the State was progressively improving the pay scales of Niyojit Teachers and that the Court should not interfere with the State’s policy decisions unless they were arbitrary or discriminatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and cannot be applied mechanically. The State is justified in maintaining different pay scales for teachers recruited through different methods, given the need to balance financial constraints with the goal of universal education. The mode of recruitment, qualifications, and nature of duties are relevant factors in determining pay scales. The State has a wide discretion in matters of economic policy, and the courts should not interfere unless the policy is arbitrary or discriminatory.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta of this case includes the Supreme Court’s suggestion that the State consider raising the initial pay scales of Niyojit Teachers to ensure they receive decent emoluments, at least to the level suggested by the Three Member Committee, without insisting on any test or examination advised by the Committee. Those who clear such test or examination, may be given even better scales. This suggestion, though not binding, reflects the Court’s concern for the welfare of the Niyojit Teachers and their essential role in the education system.

Flowchart of the Case

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

The Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) is a critical factor in education quality. The Right to Education Act, 2009, mandates specific PTRs to ensure effective teaching and learning. The following table outlines the recommended PTR for primary and upper primary schools:

The Supreme Court noted that the State of Bihar had made significant strides in reducing the PTR by appointing a large number of teachers, including Niyojit Teachers. The court acknowledged that the State’s policy of differential pay scales was partly driven by the need to manage resources while meeting the educational needs of a large population.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of State of Bihar vs. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee is a significant ruling on the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in the context of public employment. The Court upheld the State’s policy of differential pay scales for teachers based on the method of recruitment, citing the State’s need to balance financial constraints with the goal of universal education. The judgment underscores that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and requires consideration of various factors, including the mode of recruitment, qualifications, and nature of duties. The Court also acknowledged the State’s wide discretion in matters of economic policy and emphasized that it should not interfere unless the policy is arbitrary or discriminatory. The case highlights the complex interplay between constitutional mandates, economic realities, and policy decisions in the field of education.