Holding

Instructors performing substantially the same duties as squad teachers for the same employer are entitled to the same pay scale, irrespective of differences in employment status or recruitment, as mandated by the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as instructors under the centrally funded Adult and Non‑formal Education Scheme in Haryana, were paid a fixed salary of Rs.200 per month and treated as temporary employees, while squad teachers under the State Social Education Scheme were regularised with a pay scale of Rs.420‑700. The petitioners claimed that they performed the same functions as the squad teachers and therefore were entitled to equal pay under the doctrine of "equal work equal pay" and Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The State argued that the instructors were part‑time, non‑transferable, recruited locally, and employed under a temporary scheme, distinguishing them from the full‑time, transferable squad teachers. The Supreme Court examined the nature of duties, qualifications, recruitment, and employment conditions and held that the differences were not material; both classes performed similar work for the same employer. Consequently, the Court directed that the instructors be placed on the same pay scale as squad teachers with arrears and continuous service, but declined to regularise the department as the scheme was temporary. The writ petitions were partly allowed and costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether instructors under the Adult and Non‑formal Education Scheme perform substantially the same work as squad teachers under the State Social Education Scheme.
Whether the differences in employment status (temporary vs permanent), working hours, transferability, and mode of recruitment preclude the application of the doctrine of equal work equal pay.
Whether Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution impose a binding obligation on the State to grant equal pay for equal work in this context.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to continuous service and regularisation of their posts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal payequal workArticle 39(d)directive principlesdiscriminationtemporary employmentpay scaleadult educationconstitutional law

Judgment

JAIPAL & OTHERS
A
~·
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUNE 2, 1988

IK.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India: Articles 14 and 39(d)-' Equal pay for
EqualWork'__:_constitutional obligation ofthe State-Difference it modeof
selection for posts not material-Similar functions and duties under the
same employer-Relevancy of.

In the State of Haryana two identical schemes are simultaneously c
in operation with the object of imparting literacy (functional and
. awareness) to adult illiterates and to provide literacy to children keep-
ing away from school. The first scheme, known as the Adult and Non-
formal Education Scheme, is financed by tbe Central Government
under its Rural Functional Literacy Programme/Project, but is D
administered by the State Government. Under this scheme, a number of
Adult Education Centres have been opened to impart literacy to adult
illiterates. The petitioners were appointed as Instructors at these
cen~res on different dates. They are being paid a fixed salary of Rs.200
per month. The petitioners are given a deliberate break of one day in
their service after the lapse of every six months and have thus been E
treated temporary in serviee. The second scheme, known as the State
Social Education Scheme, .bas been framed by the State of Haryana.
Under Ibis scheme Social Education Centres have been opened in the
State and teachers known as Squad Teachers appointed at these centres
to impart literacy among the illiterates. The State regularised the
services of the Squad Teachers working on ad-hoc basis with effect from F
1.1.1980 and sanctioned them pay scale of Rs.420-700, the scale appli-
cable to primary school teachers in the State.

The Petitioners' grievance is that although Ibey are performing
the same nature of functions and duties as performed by the Squad
Teachers, they are denied the same scale of pay. The petitioners pray G
for the issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents (i) to
treat them in continuous service irrespective of the deliberate breaks in
their service, (ii) to grant them regular pay scales of the Primary School
Teachers pins consequential benefitS from the date of their initial
appointment, and (iii) to treat the Department of Adult Education and
Non-formal Education as a permanent department and to regularise the H
411
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A services of the petitioners in that Department.

The claim of the petitioners is based on the doctrine of 'equal
work equal pay'. The petiti11ners contend that (i) the two schemes are
similaP and the nature of duties and functions performed by instructors
are similar to those performed by squad teachers, (ii) the instructors as.
B well as the Squad Teachers are both appointed by the District Adult
Education Officer and function under the supervision of the Directorate
of Education, (iii) the iI1structors are full time employees and take
regular classes of students in the age group of 5-15 years for two and a.
half hours and of adult illiterates in the age-group of 15-35 years for one
and a half hours. In addition, they have to motivate the children and the
C adults. to join the Adult Education Centres. They are further required(tO
submit regular survey reports.

The respondents, on the other band, urge that the functions and
duties of the instructors and the squad teachers are quite different. The
main points of distinction relied upon are that (i) the instructors are
D appointed part time while squad teachers are in full time employment,
(ii) the squad teachers are transferable while instructors are not, (iii)
the squad teachers are.required to teach 7 hours daily while instructors
are required to teach for four hours, (iv) the social education scheme is
permanent and squad teachers are working under a permanent scheme
while the instructors are working under a temporary scheme, and (v)
E the qualifications and the mode of recruitment of instructors are diffe-
rent; while the instructors are appointed locally, the squad teachers are
selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board after competing
with candidates from any part of the country. It is emphasized that if a
regular selection was held, many of the Instructors may not have been
appointed.
F
Earlier, this court had in Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana,
[1987] 4 SCC 634 upheld the claim of the Supervisors appointed to
supervise the centres at which instructors have been working under the
Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme for the grant of the same scale
of pay as has been sanctioned to the Head Squad Teachers of the Social ·
G Education Scheme.

In partly allowing the writ petitions, this Court,

HELD: ( 1) There is no difference in the nature of duties of the
instructors and squad teachers and both of them carry out silnilar work
H under the same employer. The functions and duties of both classes of
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 413

persons are primarily directed to advance the cause of education to
A
bring social awareness among the people in the rural areas and to create
interest in various social, economic and educational activities. Bringing
adults to centres for educating them is a difficult task and to impart
education to dropout children is not an easy job. One of the main duties
of the instructors is to motivate the adults and dropout children to
participate in the activities and to motivate them for taking education. B
The instructors teach four hours a day and thereafter they have to do
survey work and motivation work. In addition to that, the instructors
are required to carry out additional duties which are assigned to them
by the Department. Further, the instructors are required to organise
sports like kho-kho, kahadi and athletics, and to participate in the
local functions and to motivate amuent villagers to give donations for
the adult education scheme. [420C-E; 421D-El · · c

(2) Having regard to their duties and functions, it is difficultto
uphold the respondents' plea that the instructors are part-time
employees as they work only for four hours. [421El
D
(3) If the two class of persons do same work under the same
employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working condi-
tions, the doctrine of 'equal work equal pay' would apply and it would
not .be open to the State to· discriminate one class with the other in
paying salary. [421F-G]
E
(4) The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that
equal pay is paid for equal work. Article 39(d) contained in Part IV of
the Constitution ordains. the State to direct its policy towards securing
'equal pay for equal work' for both men and women. Though Article 39
is included in the Chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy, but it
is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the article is to fix certain F
social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the
people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. [421 G; 422B-C 1·

" (5) The doctrine of 'equal work equal pay·' would apply on the
. premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there should be
complete identity in all respects, [421F] G ·

(6) A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties
and functions is entitled to. the same pay as paid to a permanent
employee. [422D] ·

(7) The plea that instructors are not transferable does not affect H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The instructors are appointed
A locally because they are in a better position to motivate the adults and
dropout children for participating in the scheme, while an outsider may
be handicapped in motivating the local residents. [423C-D I

(8) Minimum qualification for the Instructors as well as the
B Squad Teachers is Matric, though many among both are graduates and
some of them are trained teachers. Though the Instructors belong to the
locality where they have been posted, but they are appointed only after
selection. The difference in mode of selection will not affect the applica-
tion of the doctrine of 'equal work equal pay' if both the class of persons
perform similar functions and duties under the same employer. [423D-E]

C (9) The instructors are entitled to the same pay scale as sanc-
tioned to squad teachers. The pay of each of the petitioners shall be
fixed having regard to the length of service with effect from the date of
his initial appointment by ignoring the break in service on account of six
months fresh appointments. The petitioners will be entitled to incre-
0 ments in the pay scale in acrordance with law notwithstanding the
break in service that might have taken place. These directions shall be
implemented with effect from September 1, 1985. [424A-C]

10. The petitioners' claim for reiinlarising their services in the
departments cannot be accepted as admittedly the project of Adult and "
E Non-formal Education is temporary. [424C-D]

Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634; Ranjit
Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhiren Chamoli v. State of
UP., [1986] 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief
CPWD, & Ors., [!986] 1SCC639 referred to:
F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
Nos. 455, 597, 635, 636, 777/1986, 1518, 1686/1987, 77, 78 and 395 of
1988.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
G
Govinda Mukhoty and Mrs. Rekha Pandey for the Petitioners.

Madhusudan Rao, Mahabir Singh, M. Satya Narayan Rao and
C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. . .

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINGH, J.) 415

SINGH, J. The petitioners in all these ten writ petitions filed A
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have raised grievance of
discrimination against the State of Haryana in not following the
doctrine of "equal work equal pay". ·

The petitioners are working as instructors under the Adult and
Non-formal Education Scheme under the Education Department of B
Haryana. The object of the Non-formal Education and Adult Educa-
tion Scheme is to impart literacy (functional and awareness) to the
adult illiterates in age group of 15-35 years and to provide literacy to
the children in the age group of 5-15 years who are -drop-outs from
the primary and middle school level or who never joined any regular
school. A number of Adult Education Centres have been opened in
the State of Haryana, which are maintained under the Rural Func- c
tional Literacy Programme/Project (RELP) of the Central Govern-
ment, administered by the State of Haryana although expenditure in
respect oL the project is bome by the Central Government. The
petitioners were appointed instructors to impart literacy to adult
illiterates at these Centres oil different dates. The students who are D
taught by the petitioners are permitted to appear at the Vth standard
(primary examinations) conducted by the Education Department of
the State. On passing the eitamination the students are issued a certifi-
cate of having passed primary examination. On the basis of that certi-
ficate students are eligible for admission to 6th class in the regular
schools maintained by the Stafe Government. The petitioners were E
appointed instructors by the District Adult Education Officers of each
district be(ween 1978 to 1985 on the basis of selection held by a Selec-
tion Committee. Initially the petitioners were paid a fixed salary of
Rs.150 per month but since April 1983 it has been increased to Rs.200
per month. Minimum qualifications for being appointed an instructor
is matric, many of the instructors are graduates while some of them F
also hold junior basic training certificates. The petitioners are given a
deliberate break of one day after the lapse of every six months and
have thus been treated temporary in service notwithstanding the fact
that they have been continuously working ever since the date of their
appointment. There is another scheme known as Social Education
scheme in the State of Haryana for imparting education to illiterates in G
the villages, the scheme is known as State Adult Education Prog-
ramme also. Under that scheme a number of social education centres
have been opened. The teachers employed under that scheme were
known as squad teachers who run the centres. In 1981 the head squad
teachers and squad teachers were regularised as head teachers and
teachers, and granted the benefit of pay scale applicable to regular H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

head-masters and teachers of primary schools maintained by the State
A Government. The petitioners' grievance is that although they are
performing the same nature of functions and duties as performed by the
squad teachers but they are denied the same scale of pay instead they
are being paid a fixed salary of Rs.200 per month. The relief claimed
by the petitioners in all these petitions is identical in the following
B terms:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandll.mus or any
appropriate writ, order or direction that the petitioners
continue to be in the service of the respondents from the
date of their initial appointment irrespective of their being
a deliberate break in their services during the vacation
c period.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
the respondents to put the petitioners on regular pay scales
to that of primary school teachers in the Education Depart
D ment of Haryana plus other consequential benefits from
the date of their initial appointment and further direct the
respondents to pay the petitioners the difference in arrears
of salary accrued to them from the date of their initial
appointment.

\
E (c) Issue by appropriate writ, order or direction that
the .Department of Adult Education and Non-formal
EdU<.ation is a permanent department of the State and the
petitioners are regularised teachers in the Department
appointed against sanctioned posts oUnstructors.

F There is no dispute that the State of Haryana has framed its own
scheme for imparting education to Adult illiterates in the villages, this
scheme is known as the State Social Education Scheme. Under this
scheme the State of Haryana has opened social education centres in
variO"Us Districts. These centres have been functioning under the
Department of Education where teachers known as squad teachers
G have been imparting literacy, funetional and awareness among the
illiterates. The State of Haryana by its order dated 20.1.1981
regularised the services of the squad teachers working on ad�hoc.basis
with effect from 1.1.1980 and sanctioned them pay scale of Rs.420-700,
the �cale applicable to primary school teachers in the State of
Haryana. The petitioners claim that the job and functions of the
fJ instructors are similar to squad teachers for running the social educa-
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINGH, J.) 417

tion centres, therefore they are also entitled to the same pay scale as
granted to squad teachers. At this stage it is necessary to note that A
supervisors are appointed to supervise the various centres at which
instructors have been working under the Adult Education and Non-
formal Education Scheme. A number of supervisors filed a writ peti-
tion in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming same
scale of pay as granted to head squad teachers of the Social Education B
Scheme. Their claim was upheld by this Court in Bhagwan Dass v.
State of Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634 and direction was issued sanction·
ing the same scale of pay to them as has been sanctioned to the head
squad teachers of the Social Education Scheme. The petitioners' claim
that as the supervisors who supervise their work have been granted pay
scale applicable to head squad teachers the petitioners are also entitled C
to the pay scale applicable to squad teachers of the Social Education
Scheme.

The main controversy raised on behalf of the respondents is that
the instructors do not perform similar duties as performed by the
squad teachers. It was urged that the nature of duties of instructors are D
quite different than those performed by the squad teachers. The
petitioners have stated that the instructors are full time employees
they take regular classes of students in the age group of 5-15 years for
two and a half hours and they further take classes for adult illiterates in
the age group of 15-35 years for one and a half hours. This is not
disputed. The petitioners further contended that in addition to four E
hours teaching work they have to motivate the children and the adults
to join the centres for getting free education. They are required to
submit survey reports to the department every six months giving
details as to how many children in the age group of 5-15 years are not
going to the schools and how many adult persons are illiterate in their
villages. The petitioners further assert that adult education and non· F
formal education programme which is implemented by the instructors
is similar to social education programme. The instructors as well as
squad teachers of social education scheme are appointed by the
District Adult Education Officer and both these class of persons func-
tion under the control and supervision of the Joint Director, Adult
Education under the Directorate of Education of the State of G
Haryana. The duties of instructors as contained in Chapter II of the
Informal Education Instructors Guide published by the Haryana
Government, Directorate of Education, are specified, a copy of the
same has been annexed to the affidavit of Prem Chand one of the
petitioners. The duties of the instructors as prescribed therein are as
under: H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

"DUTIES OF THE INSTRUCTOR
A
(A) AS ORGANISER OF THE CENrRE

1. To contact the. villagers and their children whO can tie
given education at the centre;
B
2. To survey the villages to know who are the children who
can be brought to the centre for teaching;

3. To tell the villages about the aims and objects of educa-
tion programme; and
c (4) To form iocal co-Ordinating bodies.

(Il) AS ArnAciIBR
L To oompfeie the syllabus in time and to 'creare interest
in the chiliiren tiy hi~ teaching;

2. The instructor must be aware of multiple class and
group teaching systems;

3. He should give examples of village life and to link it with
E education; and

4. To make cultural activities a part of education.

(C) ASADMINISTRATOROFTHECENrRE

1. To contact such students who are irregular or late oom-
ers to the centre and to encourage them/their parents to
'send their children regularly to the centre;

2. To keep records of the following:

(i) persoual details of children and their progress charts;

(ii) titelrtimely evaiuaiion;
(iii) The details of admission of children from Inforrnai
liilucatioii Centre (3rd, 4th and 5th class) to formal
school;
JAIPAL 1•. STATE OF HARYANA [SINGH, J.] 419

(iv) Copy of the monthly progress and copies of reports
sent to the Supervising and Planning Offices anci A
copies of other reports."

The aforesaid publication issued by the Government further states that
Haryana is the first State which has integrated the two schemes,
namely, Informal Education Programme and Adult Education B
Programme.

In the counter-affidavit of J.K. Tandon, Assistant" Director,
Adult Education, it is stated that the instructors who are seeking
equality with the squad teachers of Social Education Scheme are quite
different. The social -education squad teachers are mobile in nature
and they move from one village to another, after completing their job c
in a village whereas in the case of instructors they are employed from
the same village and are from the nearby villages, the squad teachers
are full time employees and teaching work is carried out by them for
full day. However, in his affidavit Shri Tandon could not dispute the
duties as mentioned in the Informal Education Instructors Guide o
(extracted above). Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Sabira
Khosla, Deputy Director, Adult-Education, in that affidavit it is stated
that the squad teachers are full time employees they work for-~ 7
hours and besides working at night during 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. they do
soeial work also. Another additional affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the respondents by S.R. Kaushal, Assistant Director of School ·i::
-~ Education. In his affidavit he has stated that social education squad
teachers perform various duties under the Social Education Prog-
ramme which is divided into various divisions as tinder:

1. Education division.
F
2. Debate and discussion division.

-~, 3. Sports division.
~

4. ·Cultural activity division.
G
5. Social service division.

It is stated that the squad teachers undertake various functions to
supplement the programme under the aforesaid divisions. He has
pointed out the difference in the working of the instructors and the
squad teachers. The main point of distinction relied· upon by him Is H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

that the instructors arc appointed part-time while squad teachers and
A
JBT teachers are in full time employment. Social education squad
teachers are transferable while instructors are not transferable. A
social squad teacher is required to teach 7 hours daily while an
instructor is required to teach for four hours. The social education
scheme is permanent and squad teachers are working under a perma-
13 nent scheme while the instructors are working under a temporary
scheme.

We have given our anxious consideration to the material placed
before us. On a careful analysis of the same we find that the nature of
duties and functions performed by instructors are similar to those
perfonned by squad teachers. The functions and duties of both classes
c of persons are primarily directed to advance the cause of education to
bring social awareness among the people in the rural areas and to
create interest in various social economic and educational activities.
Bringing adults to centre for educating them is a difficult task and to
impart education to drop-outs children is not an easy job. One of the
D main duties of the instructors is to motivate the adults and drop out
children to participate in the activities and.to motivate them for taking
education. The instructors teach four hours a day and thereafter they
have to do survey work and motivation work in addition to that the
instructors are required to carry out additional duties which are
assignee to them by the Department. This is evident from the circular
E letter dated 4.3.1987 issued by the Joint Director, Adult Education
(Annexure B) to the affidavit of Rajinder Singh petitioner. The letter
was circulated to all the instructors of adult and informal education, it
reads as under:

"Dear
F
To bring adults in centres is a very difficult task. This
is possible only when our centres are attractive and adults
feel happy to come to the centres and forget all their wor-
ries after coming to the Centre. Instructors should behave
with the adults in such a way that they think him their
G friend and guide. The adults should be told that by hearing,
reading the writing, they can know about the Government
Scheme made for their benefit and progress. Every Ins-
tructor is supposed to know about all such schemes so that
they can guide their students. The Adults should get the
guidance from the instructors as to how they can get loans
1-1 from various banks and cooperative Societies. In the com-
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINGH, J.I 421

ing year we must equip the instructors with training so that
A
they can fulfil the responsibility given to them.

In a meeting held at Kamal you were told about the
facilities being given to widows and old persons. You have
to properly propagate the same.
B
I will be very grateful to you for circulating this letter
to all the instructors and supervisors.

Office Dist. Adult Education Officer Kamal. Page
No. A-d-4/3480-659, Kamal dated 13.3.1981.

One copy of the letter to be circulated to all instruc- c
tors and supervisors of Adult and Informal Education for
necessary action.

Dist Adult Education Officer Kamal 13.2.1987."
D
The aforesaid duties which are required to be performed by the in-
structors are in addition to their four hour teaching duty. Further the
instructors are required to organise sports like kho-kho, kabadi and
athletics, and to participate in the local functions and to motivate
affluent villagers to give donations for the adult education scheme.
This is evident from a circular letter issued by the District Adult Edu- E
cation Officer, Ambala on U.11.1986 (Annexure C to the affidavit of
Rajender Singh). Having regard to these facts and circumstances we
are of the view that there is no difference in the nature of duties of the
instructors and squad teachers and both of them carry out similar work
under the same employer. The doctrine of equal work equal pay would
apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there F
should be complete identity in all respects. If the two class of persons
do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility,
under similar working conditions the doctrine of 'equal work equal
pay' would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate
one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a Constitu-
tional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. G

The respondents' contention that the adult education scheme is
temporary, as the posts are sanctioned on year to year basis and as
such the "instructors are not entitled to claim equality with the squad
teachers as the scheme under which they work of a permanent nature
is misconceived. This contention was rejected by this Court in the case H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

of Bhagwan Dass (supra) while considering the case of supervisors.
A There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of
the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same depart-
ment therefore the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular
basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article
39( d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to
B direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both
men and women. Though ArtiFle 39 is included in the Chapter of
Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature.
Th<; purpose of ihe Article is to fix certain social and. ec()nomic goals
for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work
in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work
has been implemented by this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union of India
C &Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhiren Chamoli and Ors. v. State of U.P.,
[ 1986] 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief,
CPWD & Ors., [1986] 1 SCC 639. In view of these authorities it is too
late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on
the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being
D permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the
same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a
permanent employee.

The respondents' contention that the mode of recruitment of
petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of squad teachers
E inasmuch as the petitioners are appointed locally while squad
teachers were selected by the subordinate Service Selection Board
after competing with candidates from any part of the country.
Emphasis was laid during argument that if a regular selection was held
many of the petitioners may not have been appointed they got the
employment because outsiders did not compete. In our opinion, this
F submission has no merit. Admittedly the petitioners were appointed
on the recommendation of a Selection Committee appointed by the
Adult Education Department. It is true that the petitioners belong to
the locality where they have been posted, but they were appointed
only after selection, true that they have not been appointed.after selec-
tion made by I he Subordinate Service Selection Board but that is
G hardly relevant for the purposes of application of doctrine of "equal
pay for equal work". The difference in mode of selection will not
affect the appl.cation of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" if
both the class of persons perform similar functions and duties under
the same employer. Similar plea raised by the State of Haryana in
opposing the case of supervisors in the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra)
H was rejected, where it was observed that if the State deliberately chose
JAIPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA [SINGH, J.] -423

to limit the selection of candidates from a cluster of a few villages it A.
will not absolve the State for treating such candidates in a discrimina-
tory manner to the disadvanta~e of the selectees once they are
appointed provided t.he work done by the candidates sn selected is
similar in nature. The recruitment was confined to the locality as it was
~onsidered advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of
villages for the purposes of implementing the Adult Education Schenw lj
because the instructors appointed from that area would know the
people of that area more intimately and would be in a better position
t<;>. persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme. in
order to make it a success.

The respondents' plea that instructors are not transferable does
119.t '!ffect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The instructors are C
{\ppg,ln,tc;Q. l\W.'!IIY t!> \lllPl!!n.Wnt t,\l(l Adult an.\! N:!>l!-formal Education
' ~Qhl!lllti peqms~ ·(hey arc; in a better position to motivate the adults anJ
\lrop-()11ts ~\lil\lren for parti~ipating in the scheme. An outsider may be
h;indicapp(ld in rnotivating the local residents for participating in the
sch.eme. As regards t\le difference in qualification is concerned it is D
true that the. squa<\ teachers possess JBT certificates and many of them
are graduates but minilllUm qualification for squad teachers is also
lll.atri,c. S\milarly minimum qualification for instructors is matric but
many of the petitioners are graduates and some of them are trained
teach.ers possessing }BT certificates.. Great emphasis was laid on be-
half of the respongent S\ate that instructors are part,time employees E
whije squad teachers are full time employees. Similar arguments were
raised on b.eh;ilf of the State in the case of Bhagwan Dass (supra) in
resisting the ~!aim pf supervisor bu\ the submission was rejected by
this Court Ol\ the gr().U!ld th.at having regard to the duties and functions
wh\£h tJie ~llP~rvi~ors are required to perform it was difficult to uphold
th.e pie'! thii.t h.e was a Pl!r\-time employee. In the instant cases also we f
h;iye ;i\niady l)O.ti~d th,(l \let.ails of the duties and functions assigned to.
an instructor wJiich normally say that the petitioners are required to
teach at the centre for four hours and in addition to that they are
required to motiva,te adults and drop-outs.children of the locality and
to prepare survey reports, in addition to that they are further required
to implement various schemes initiated by the Government, they are 0
further required to. orga11ise sports, athletics programme and to
persuade locaI affluent people for making donations. They are
required to educate tile !<;>cal residents with regard to the various
welfare schemes. in.itiated l;>y the Government for the welfare of the
residents of the rural are.as. Having rega.rd to their d11.ti.es l!\ld functions
it is difficult t 0 1!!'1\Qlq th.e resporideqt's plea that the instructors ar~ H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A part time employees as they work only for four hours.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the instructors are
entitled to the same pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers. We,
accordingly, direct that the petitioners' salary shall be fixed in the
same pay scale as that of squad teachers. The pay of each of the
B
petitioners shall be fixed having regard to the length of service with
effect from the date of his initial appointment by ignoring the break in
service on account of six months fresh appointments. The petitioners
will be entitled to increments in the pay scale in accordance with law
notwithstanding the break in service that might have takep place. We
further direct that these directions shall be implemented with effect
C from September 1, 1985 as directed by this Court in the case of
Bhagwan Dass (supra). The petitioners' claim for regularising their
services m the department cannot be accepted as admittedly the project
of Adult and Non-formal Education is temporary which is likely to last
till 1990. We accordingly allow the writ petitions partly with costs
which we quantify at Rs.5,000.
0
R.S.S. Petitions allowed.