Supreme Court of India

K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND ORS.versusSHRI VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 182
Decided: 21 February 1997
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYS SAGHIR AHMAD

Holding

The Court held that non‑teaching staff of a private college performing a public function are entitled to enforce parity of pay with government employees through a writ under Article 226, as mandated by Article 39(d) of the Constitution.

Summary

Six lab assistants employed on daily wages at a private college filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking equal pay with government employees, invoking Article 39(d) and executive instructions. The High Court dismissed the petition, and the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The Court examined whether a writ is maintainable when the institution receives no grant‑in‑aid and no statutory rule exists, and whether the staff are entitled to parity of pay. It held that education is a fundamental right and that staff of private institutions performing public functions are protected by public‑interest considerations, making the writ maintainable. The Court further ruled that the executive instructions create a right to parity of pay enforceable under Article 226, not limited to the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and a writ directing the college to pay the lab assistants on par with government employees was issued.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for non‑teaching staff of a private college seeking equal pay when no statutory rule exists and the college does not receive grant‑in‑aid.
Whether the lab assistants are entitled to parity of pay with government employees under Article 39(d) of the Constitution and executive instructions.
Whether the remedy for such a claim lies exclusively under the Industrial Disputes Act or also under the constitutional jurisdiction of the courts.

Legislation cited

Subjects

equal payprivate collegenon‑teaching staffArticle 39(d)Article 226writ petitionpublic interestservice lawparity of payIndustrial Disputes Act

Judgment

A                   K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND ORS.
                                           v.
                SHRI VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF
                        ENGINEERING AND ANR.

                                FEBRUARY 21, 1997
B
               [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

            Service Law :

C         Non-teaching staff of private college-Lab Assistants-Appointed on
    daily wages-Claim for equal pay for equal work on par with other Govern- .
    ment employees-Writ petition before High Court-Held is main-
    tainable-They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par with Government
    employees under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution.

D           Constitution of India, 1950:

           Articles 39 (d) and 226-Equal pay for equal work-Teachers of private
    college not in receipt of grant-in-aid--Held, are entitled to seek enforcement
    of orders issued by Government by availing remedy under Article 226-Writ
E   petition is maintainable-They are entitled to equal pay so as to be on par
    with Government employees under Article 39(d).

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1774 of
    1997.

p        From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh             l
    High Court in W.A.No. 179 of 1996.

            L.N. Rao, V,S. Reddy and S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants.

            B. Parthasarthy for the Respondents.
G
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

            This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High
H   Cou~t of Andhra Pradesh, made on April 23, 1996 in W.A. No.179of1996.
                                           368
          K. KRISHNAMACHARYULU v. VENKATESWAR HINDU COLLEGEOFENGG.           369

           The admitted position is that the appellant and six others had been     A
    appointed on daily wages to the post of Lab. Assistants as non-teaching
    staff of the respondent-private college. They were being paid daily wages.
    Writ petition and appeal seeking equal pay having been dismissed, they
    have filed the present appeal for direction to pay them equal pay for equal
    work on par with the other Government employees.                               B


           It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Govern-
    ment have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on par
    with the Government employees. The question is: when there is no
    statutory rule issued in that behalf, and the Institution, at the relevant time, C
    being not in receipt of any grant-in-aid; whether the writ petition under"
    Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable? In view of the long line
    of decisions of this Court holding that when there is an interest created by
    the Government in an Institution to impart education, which is a fundamen-
    tal right of the citizens, the teachers who teach the education gets an D
    element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a conse-
    quence, the element of public interest requires to regulate the conditions
    of service of those employees on par with Government employees. In
    consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as
    per the executive instructions of the Government? It is not also in dispute E
    that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant had
    later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-
    Management paid the salaries on par with the Government employees.
    Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through
    the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of
    the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities F


-
    to the people to avail of the right to education. The private institutions
    cater to the needs of the educational opportunities. The teacher duly .
    appointed to a post in the private institution aiso is entitled to seek
    enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as
    to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the G
    remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element
    of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element,
    the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail of the remedy
    provided under Article 226; the jurisdiction part is very wide. It would be
    pifferent position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot H
    370                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we
    hold that the writ petition is maintainable. They are entitled to equal pay
    so as to be on par with Government. employees under Article 39(d) of the
    Constitution.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ is issued. But in the
B   circumstances without costs.

    R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "equal pay"Sign in to search