Holding

The Court held that the primary section may remain attached, trained teachers are entitled to full salary under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971, and the payment to untrained teachers should be determined after a statutory enquiry by the District Inspector of Schools.

Summary

The case concerned a high school in Uttar Pradesh that had been upgraded in 1974 with an attached primary section operating since 1970. The primary section employed 21 teachers, of whom 19 were untrained and 2 were trained, and after the school was removed from the list of approved schools the payment of salaries under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 was stopped. The State questioned whether the primary section should remain attached to the high school and whether the untrained teachers were entitled to salary under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the attachment of the primary section was justified given the large number of students and lack of an alternative government school, and that the two trained teachers must receive full salary from the date they acquired qualifications or assumed charge. For the untrained teachers, the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to conduct an enquiry, give notice to the teachers and management, and determine the rate, period and procedure for payment within two months. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the primary section attached to the upgraded high school should continue to be attached or be detached and a separate school established.
Whether teachers of the attached primary section are entitled to salary under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971.
Whether untrained teachers are eligible for salary under the Act and, if so, at what rate and for what period.
Whether the District Inspector of Schools should be directed to inquire into the payment of salary to untrained teachers.

Subjects

Payment of Salary Actteacher salaryuntrained teachersattached primary sectionschool inspectiongovernment schoolsalary entitlementeducation law

Judgment

}

J STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A
v.
.... COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AZAD UCHCHTAR
MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 3, 1997
B
i' [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

_; Payment of Salary Act, 1971 :

High School upgraded in 1974-Primary section attached to the High
School-Non-payment of salary to Teachers-Trained teachers to be paid
c
salary as per the Act from the date of acquiring qualifications or from the
date of their assuming charge as teachers-Untrained Teachers-District In-
spector of School after notice to the Teachers and Management, to make
enquiries and decide the rates as per Govemment mles and the period for
which payment is to be made-Also to decide the procedure for appointment D
of the untrained Teachers-Enquiry to be completed within two months and
then payment of salary to be made to the untrained teachers as per
\
/ rules-Directions issued-Service Law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 700 of
1997. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 131of1993.

T.N. Singh for R.B. Misra for the Appellants.
=' F
>
R.P. Gupta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on September 7, 1994 in Special
Appeal No. 131/93.
..,
The Division Bench by the impugned order has directed the Inspec-
tor of Schools to inspect the primary school covered under the provisions H"
837
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 1 S.C.R.
A of Payment of Salary Act, 1971 to find out whether the primary section has
been merged or attached to the High School which was upgraded in 1974,
whether the teachers have been working in that school and whether salary
was to be paid to such teachers who are working as per the said report.
We have called for the said report in that behalf. In the report dated
B 25.1.1997, the District Inspector of Schools has stated that the inspection
of the attached primary section of the respondent-Institution was made on
January 7, 1997. It is further stated that the primary section of the school
was recognised as an attached institution as per the orders of the District
Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, dated September, 6, 1989 and the pay-
ment of salary to the teachers of the primary section attached to the High
C School was being made under the Payment of Salary Act, 1971. But after
the school was detached from the list of the approved schools, the payment
of salary came to be stopped. It is further stated that as per the records of
the Institution, the attached Primary School is continuing from the year
1970. It is also stated that "(I)n the attached Primary Section of the
D institution total number of 21 teachers are teaching in which 19 (Nineteen)
teachers are untrained and 2 (Two) are trained". More details have been
furnished in the report. As regards the number of the students found in
the Primary section of the institution, it is furnished in the report that as
on 7.1.97 a total number of 859 student had been registered and 611
students were present. It is further stated that "(T)he present attached
E Primary Section is governed by the same Authorised Controller/Principal
of the Higher Secondary School and the education is imparted within the
same campus as per rules."

In view of the above report, the question arises : whether the Primary
F section of the respondent-Institution should be continued to be attached
to the High School or should be detached and whether a separate school
is required to be established under the Basic Shiksha Parishad. When we
put the question to the learned counsel for the State whether any separate
school has been established in that village, he is unable to give us any
information in that behalf. It would be obvious from the report submitted
G that no other Government school appears to be functioning there. Other-
wise, the Inspector would have reported in that behalf.

In view of the fact that more than 600 students, as against more than ~-
800 students enrolled, are actually studying in the school, we think that
H attachment of the Primary section from 1970 to the upgraded school of
STAIB,. COMMlITEEOF MANAGEMENT AZAD UCHCHTARMADHYAMIKVIDYA!.AYA 839
1974 would be justified. However, with regard to payment of salary, it is A
not clear from the record whether the untrained teachers are entitled to
payment of salary; if so, at what rate and upto what period and whether
untrained teachers are required to be appointed under the relevant rules.
In the apsence of such factual and legal position, it would not be safe to
give any direction on that issue. Under those circumstances, we think that
B
appropriate course would be that the District Inspector of Schools,
Maharaj Ganj be directed to enquire, after notice to the teachers and

..., Manager-respondents to decide whether the payment of salary to the 19
untrained teachers could be made and if so, at what rates, as per Govern-
ment rules, and upto what period and what would be the procedure taken
for appointment of untrained teachers in the school as per the existing rules c
and the pfocedure. When the report in that behalf is given, the issue of
payment of salary to them would be accordingly decided. As regards the
two trained teachers, they are required to be paid the full salary as per the
Payment of Salary Act, 1971 from the date of their acquiring qualifications
·or the date of their assuming the charge as teachers, whichever is later. As D
regards the untrained teachers, they are required to be paid after the
necessary enquiry is completed. The Inspector of Schools is directed to
complete the enquiry within a period of two months from today and then
make necessary payment of salary as per the rules.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. E
G.N. Appeal disposed of.