Holding

Instructors of non‑formal education centres are not entitled to equal pay with primary school teachers because the nature of their work and the institutions differ.

Summary

Instructors employed on a part‑time basis in non‑formal education centres in West Bengal were paid a modest monthly honorarium and taught for two hours a day. They filed a writ petition seeking the same pay scales and allowances as regular primary school teachers, invoking the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(d). The Calcutta High Court allowed the petition, but the State appealed. The Supreme Court held that the non‑formal centres differ qualitatively from regular primary schools in terms of appointment procedures, recruitment sources, teaching methods, hours of work and payment structure, and therefore the instructors are not entitled to the same pay. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether instructors in non‑formal education centres are entitled to the same scales of pay and allowances as primary school teachers under the principle of equal pay for equal work (Article 39(d) of the Constitution).

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal paynon‑formal educationprimary school teachersArticle 39(d)honorariumpart‑time employmentconstitutional lawwage discrimination

Judgment

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
MONlRUJJAMAN MULLICK AND ORS. ETC.

JULY 19, 1996

jKULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHlR AHMAD, JJ.] B

Se1vice Law :

Educational institulions--lnstructors of 11011-fonnal education centres
in State of West Bengal-Claim for scales of pay as admissible to p1imwy C
school teachers-Held, cannot M allowed as apmt from basic qualitative
differences bettt.:een the t1vo institutions, even t/ze nature of wo1k of instntctors
of non- Jonna! education centres and the prbna1y school teachers is not
identical-Constitution of India A1t. 39(d)-Equal pay for equal wm*.

The respondents \\'ere Vi'orking as instructors in various non-formal D
education centres in the State of West Bengal. The said centres were
opened by the State Government implementing the Scheme of the Central
Government to impart non-formal education to the children in the age
group of 9/11 year belonging to Vt'eaker sections of society. These centres
\Vere part~time institutions and the instructors were engaged to teach the E
children for two hours a day on a fixfd honorarium of Rs. 105 per n1onth
at the p'rimary level and Rs. 125 per month at the upper primary level. The
instructors filed a writ petition in the High Court,claiming same scales of
pay and allowances as \\'ere admissible and \Vere being paid to primary
school teachers, on the basis of the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
The High Court decided i'1 favour of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved, the F
State filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The non-formal education centres cannot be equated with
• the primary schools which are regularly run by the Education Department G
of the State Government. Apart from the basic qualitative differences
between the two institutions, even the nature of work of the instructors of
non-formal institutions and the primary school teachers is not identical.
The method of appointment, the source of recruitment, method of teach·
ing, hours of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. Jn H
749
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court fell into patent
error in applying the principle ul' "equal pay for e11ual work". The judg-
ments of the High Co1;rt are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the
instructors shall stand dismissed. (753-B-C; F-GJ

Deihi Development Ho1ticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administra-
B tion, Delhi and 01'·., [1992] 4 sec 99, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Ci,il Appeal No. 4195 of
1994 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.93 of the Calcutta High
C Court in A. No. 367 or 1991.

D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, M.S. Gujral, J.K. Mitter, Syed Ali
Ahmad, Mohan Pandey, J. Kar, Rana Mukherjee, Goodwill Indeevar, R.N.
Tripathi, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Vijay Panjwani and Ms. Indira Sawhney for
D the appearing parties.

The Judgment/ Order of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Monirujjaman Mullick and other private
respondents, in the appeal herein) were \Vorking as instructors in various
E non-formal education centres in different districts in the State of West
Bengal. They approached the High Court by way of a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction - based on the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" - that they were entitled to the same
scales of pay and allowances as were admissible and being paid to the
primary school teachers. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed
F writ petition. Appeal filed by the Slate of West Bengal was disposed of
with the following directions :

The writ petitioners who are not in regular employment elsewhere
11

and who have the minimum qualification prescribed for the
primary school teachers arc entitled to the same scale of pay and
G allowances as admissible to the primary school teachers from the
date of their initi:tl appointment and further that they are also
entitled to annual increments in the pay-scale in accordance with
law; but their claim for absorption in the department as regular
primary school teachers cannot be sustained and therefore stands
H rejected.
STATE v. M.MULLICK[KULDIP S!NGH.J.] 751

It is made clear that the services of such non-formal teachers will A
be liable to stand automatically terminated as and when the non-
formal education scheme is discontinued in this State.

Persons similarly placed should also be given the same bcnelit
to avoid further litigation in regard to the self-same issue."
B
This appeal by the State of West Bengal is against the judgment of the
learned single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
June 28 of 1993.

We may briefly state the facts of the case. Government of India
introduced a scheme in the year 1974-75 for imparting non-formal educa-
c
tion to the children in the age group of 9/11 years who were either school
drop-outs or did not go to school. The scheme provided for the opening
of non-formal education centres (part- time) by the State Government with
the help of Cenkal Government grant. West Bengal Government took a
policy decision on December 8, 1978 lo implement the scheme. Sub- D
sequently the State Government formulated a new scheme regarding non-
formal education, which became operative with efft.:ct fro1n October 4,
1989. The non- formal centres were part-time institutions. The instructors
were given a fixed honorarium of Rs. 105 per month at the primary level
and Rs. 125 per month at the upper primary level. Person with a mctivation
to serve the community- particularly the weaker sections - were appointed E
instructors. They were required to teach the children for two hours a day.
The centres were run by the Panchayat Samilies in rural areas and by the
Municipal Committees/Corporations in urban areas. There were no
specific buildings or sitedor the centres. The instructors could use any site
or building belonging to a social organisation or a local authority.
F
The Division Bench of the High Court applied the doctrine of "equal
pay for equal work" on the following reasoning :

"From the booklet published and distributed by the Primary
Education Directorate regarding\formal (Prathamic Siksha) and G
non-formal (Bidhikukta Siksha), it appears that the purposes of
both the streams being to help attain human values through prac-
tical literacy in language, elementary arithmetic, awareness for
maintaining personal and public health and good environment,
social awareness, scientific outlook to. get rid of prejudices etc.,
the syllabus ano the books prescribed for formal and non- formal H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A education are almost same 'vith the uitimate goal of equipping the
boys an<l girls for entry into class Vin regular High or .I unior High
School.

lt is t!~11s clear and \Ve arc also of considered opinion that
neither stream is inferior to Lhe other and that the duties, functions
B and responsibilities of the teachers of the formal and non-formal
education arc alike, if not heavier on the side of the non-formal
strcan1. 11

Mr. Dipankar Gupta learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Stale
C of West Bengal has contended that the non-formal education centres were
not a part of the regular educational system of the Stale of WeslBengal. These
centres \Vere started under a policy decision of the central Government \vhich
was implemented by the Stale of West Bengal to help educate the children
belonging to \Vcakcr sections of the society. These centres \Vere part-tin1c by
nature and the instructors \Vere paid any honorariun1. They \Vere not ap-
D pointed lo a regular pay scale and were not paid any salary. Even the teaching
in the centres \\'as not for a full educe:itional-day~ it \Vas only for t\vo hours. Ac-
cording to Mr. Gupta \Vhcn the Schen1e provided for t\VO hours of non-formal
teaching at the part-ti1ne centres by the part-tin1e instructors, \Vho \Vere paid
a mere honourarium the High Court \Vas not justified in enlarging the scope
E of the Scheme in the exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of!ndia. Mr. Gupta relied upon the judgment of this Court
in Delhi _Developnzent Honiculture En1ployees [inion\'. Delhi Adniit.istration,
Delhi and 01'·., [1992] 4 SCC 99. P.B. Sawant, J. speaking for the Cour1 ob-
served as under :

F "Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more
than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment
under such scheme and lo claim on the basis of the said employment
a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No court can
be a party to such exercise. ft is \\Tong to approach the problems of
those employed under such scheme with a view to providing them
G
with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work.
These concepts in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted
and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the
many of the little income that they may get lo keep them from
starvation. They would benefit a few al the cost of the many starving
H poor for whom the schemes are meant. Thal would also force the
STATE v. M. MULLICK[KULDIP SJNGH.J.] 753

State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from A
introducing the new ones, for want of resources. 11

We are of the view that the non-formal educational centres cannot be
equated with the primary schools which are regularly run by the Education
Department of the State Government. Apart from the basic qualitative
differences between the two institutions even the nature of work of the B
non-formal instructors and the primary school teachers is not identical. The
method of appointment, the source of recruitment, method of teaching,
hours of teaching and the mode of payment are entirely different. In the
facts and circumstances of this case the High Court fell into patent error
in applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work". C

The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge
of the High Court and the impugned judgment of the Divisit~1 Bench of
the High Coml are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents
before the High Court .shall stand dismissed. No costs.

Al! the I. As are disposed of. D

C.A. No. 9395 of 1996 @ SLP No. 22561 of 1994

Special leave granted.

We have, by a separate judgment pronounced today, allowed Civil E
Appeal 4195 of 1994 State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Monimjjaman Mullick
& Ors., and have set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta
High Court (State of West Bengal v. Monintjjilman Mullick, 97 CWN 1075.

We therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court which is based on Moni111jjaman's F
case. No costs.

CA. No. 4194 of 1994.

We have by a separate judgment pronounced today in C.A. 4195 of
1994, set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in G
State of West Bengal v. Monimjjaman Mullick & On», (reported in 97 CWN
page 1075). This appeal has been filed by the non-formal education
teachers association against the A1onin1jja111an's case. This appeal has
become infructuous and as such ls dismissed.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.