Financial Burden On State Is No Ground To Deny Legitimate Dues To Teachers: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court while ordering the Maharashtra Government to grant the benefit of 'rectified' pay scale under the fifth pay commission to teachers with effect from January 1, 1996 instead of January 1, 2000, held that merely because there will be a financial burden on the State, the teachers cannot be denied their legitimate dues.

A division bench of Justice Kishore Sant and Justice Jitendra Jain while hearing the plea filed by a few teachers on October 12, noted that the State initially extended them the benefit of the fifth pay commission and their salaries were revised under the pay scale of Rs 6,500 to Rs 10,500 with effect from January 1, 1996. However, the said pay scale was rectified and the revised pay scale was made between Rs 7,225 to Rs 11,050. But this, rectified pay scale was made applicable to the 'vocational' subject teachers from January 1, 2000 instead of January 1, 1996 the day when the fifth pay commission benefits were made applicable to these teachers. 

The bench criticised the State for arguing that the grant of the benefit retrospectively would impose a financial burden upon the State.

"Such an argument cannot be accepted. Merely because the State took time to rectify the pay scale, the benefit of such rectification cannot be denied to the petitioners. This is not a case of fixation of a new pay scale, but a case of rectification of the pay scale which was already fixed with effect from January 1, 1996. Financial burden cannot be a ground to deny legitimate due of the teachers. Therefore, the contention raised by the Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted. If other teachers can be given benefit from January 1, 1996 then justification of financial stress for non-grant of same to vocational teachers cannot be accepted," the bench held. 

Further, the bench said that the distinction sought to be made by the State between teachers teaching vocational courses and those teaching non- vocational courses, for the purpose of denying the actual monetary benefit of the rectified pay scale also cannot be accepted.

"Any classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the present case, the petitioners are not seeking the pay scale applicable to teachers teaching non-vocational courses. They are seeking the actual monetary benefit of their own rectified pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996. Therefore, there is no rational basis for making a distinction between teachers teaching vocational courses and those teaching non- vocational courses so as to deny the petitioners the benefit of the rectified pay scale with effect from January 1, 1996," the court said. 

The bench said that when the State has already granted the benefit of the actual monetary benefit of the rectified pay scale to other teachers, teaching non-vocational courses, with effect from January 1, 1996, there was no justification in denying similar relief to these teachers. 

The judges rejected the contentions that the present case is a policy matter, and therefore, Court should not interfere in the same. They said, "If policies are framed to treat similarly situated people differently then it would fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this contention is also not accepted. Also once the State accepts notional inclusion from January 1, 1996, there is no justification in the facts of the present case to deny actual benefit from the said date."

With these observations, the bench has ordered the State to pay within six months, the rectified pay scale benefits to the petitioner teachers. 

Appearance: 

Advocate MR Jamdhade appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Government Pleader PK Lakhotiya represented the State.