'Not Equally Placed In Service As Govt Teachers': Patna High Court Dismisses Plea By 117 Contract [Niyojit] Teachers Against Grade Pay Denial

The teachers, who were also trained professionals, contended that they were unfairly denied grade pay, a privilege granted to trained teachers in regular government employment.

The petitioners pointed out that while their counterparts in regular government service received both a fixed pay scale and a grade pay, Niyojit teachers were deprived of the latter for the first two years of their tenure.

They argued that this discrepancy amounted to discrimination, considering that untrained teachers were eligible for grade pay as soon as they acquired the necessary training qualification. However, trained (Niyojit) teachers were subjected to a complete denial of grade pay during the initial two years.

The court pointedly emphasized that the alleged discrimination was framed within the comparison of Niyojit teachers employed at different levels—Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, and Municipal—with government teachers hired by the State of Bihar.

Referring to a precedent, the court cited the judgment in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) 18 SCC 301, where the claim of “equal pay for equal work” was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the context of Niyojit Teachers.

The division bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandra and Justice Partha Sarthy held, “Hence, the claim does not survive, even as against the alleged denial of grade pay, especially since the Government teachers and the Niyojit teachers cannot be considered as equally placed in the service of the Government.”

“The Niyojit teachers were appointed on an honorarium and it is by Annexure-3 that they were conceded a scale of pay. While the trained Government teachers were granted a grade pay by Annexure-3, the Niyojit teachers were expected to wait for two years, even if trained, which would not result in any claim of discrimination, especially going by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the bench added while dismissing the writ petition.

Case Title: Rajanish Kumar Mishra and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 92

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2417 of 2022

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate