Holding

The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel the Central Government to sanction the secondary school or regularise the teachers, as they are not government employees and Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not empower the Tribunal in this matter.

Summary

The Central Government sanctioned a primary school for children of ordnance factory employees, while the employees themselves established a secondary school staffed by teachers paid honorarium from fees. The teachers sought regularisation and equal pay before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Government to assess needs, create posts, and regularise the teachers. The Union of India appealed, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that the teachers were not government employees. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had no authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to compel the Government to sanction the secondary school or regularise the teachers, as there was no master‑servant relationship. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowed the Union's appeal, and dismissed the teachers' appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct the Central Government to sanction a secondary school and regularise teachers employed there.
Whether the teachers of the secondary school are employees of the Central Government for purposes of service law and pay scale.
Whether Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers jurisdiction over such service matters.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 14

Subjects

civil serviceadministrative tribunaljurisdictionregularisationhonorariumgovernment school teacherspolicyfinancial burdenSection 14Administrative Tribunals Actequal pay for equal work

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
v. A
TEJRAM PARASHRAMJJ BOMBHATE AND ORS. ETC.

MAY 3, 1991
-I

[K.JAGANNATHASHETIY ANDYOGESHWARDAYAL,JJ.] B

Civil Service: Primary School catering to education needs of
children of employees in ordnance factories-Teachers paid honora-
rium not full salary out of school fees-Teachers cannot claim pay scale
of Government School Teachers-Central Administrative Tribunal can-
~- not compel government to assess needs of school and create necessary
posts. c

The appellant i.e. the Central Government sanctioned primary
school from classes I·V to cater to the educational needs of children of
persons employed in the ordnance factory at Ambazari. The employees
on their own in the same premises opened a secondary• school with D
classes VI to X. The respondents are teache~s in the Secondary School

.. and are being paid out of fees and other donations received by the
school, They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking
regularisation of their sernces and demanded equal pay for equal
work.
E
The Tribunal allowed their claim with certain directions to the
appellants including the Union of India i.e. directing the Central
Government immediately to take up an assessment of the needs of the
School to carry on its activities at the present level and to create a
_,-->- sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis. The Tri-
bun~! further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up F
the newly created posts in accordance with recruitment rules to be
framed for the purpose.

Allowing Civil appeal No. 233 of 1991 of the Union of India, and
setting aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing Civil Appeal No. 480
of 1989 of the respondents who have not been recruited as per direction G
of the Tribunal, the Court.
j

HELD: 1. There is no evidence in record that respondents were
appointed as teachers on honorarium by or on behalf of the Central
Government. There is no evidence that they were initially appointed in
primary School and later shifted to the Secondary School. It is undls· H

685
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

puted that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary
A
School nor created any posts thereto. It had only sanctioned the Primary
School and the posts connected therewith which are being occupied by
regularly recruited teachers. [688A-B]

2. The directions of the Tribunal are indeed amazing compelling
B the Central Government to sanction the Secondary School. The Central
Government has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in sanc-
tioning or running classes beynnd the Primary School level. It is a policy
matter involving fmancial burden. No Court or the Tribunal could
compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure. [688D-E]

c There3.is The respondents are not paid by the Central Government.
no relationship of master and servant between the Central
Government and the respondents. The respondents are employed by the
local officers so how the Central Government is accountable. [688G)

4. Even section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 con-
D fers no jurisdiction, power or authority on the Tribunal to deal with the
service matters of the employees like the respondents. The respondents
cannot claim the pay-scale admissible to the Government school ~
teachers and much less regularisation of their services by the Central
Government. [688H-689A]

E 5. The directions of the Tribunal are apparently unjustified and
without authority of law so cannot be sustained. [688F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 233
of 1991 etc.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.1988 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in O.A. No. 58 of 1988.

V.C. Mahajan, S.N. Terdal, A.K. Srivastava, C.Y. Subba Rao,
S.K. Gambhir, Dr. B.L. Wadhera, Sudarshan Menon, P. Parames-h-
waran and G.D. Gupta for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. To cater to the educational
needs of children of persons employed in the ordnance factory at
Ambazari the Central Government has sanctioned and is running a
H Primary School from classes I to V. In the same premises, the emp-
U.0.1. v. T.P. BOMBHATE [SHETTY, J.] 687

loyees of the ordnance factory, by their own arrangement are also
A
having a Secondary School with classes VI to X. They have appointed
the respondents as teachers in the Secondary School. They are- paid
honorarium and not full salary. Their honorarium is paid out of fees
from the children and other donations received by the school. The
respondents, however, approached the Central Administrative Tri-
bunal seeking regularisation of their services and demanding equal pay B
for equal work. The Tribunal has allowed their claim with certain
directions to the appellants including the Union of India. The direc-
tions issued by the Tribunal are as follows:
-.. "(i) The respondents will immediately take up an assess-
ment of the needs of the school to carry on its activities at
their present level and the number of additional teachers c
required for this purpose; (ii) After assessing the number
of teachers needed, the respondents will proceed to create a
sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis;
(iii) After completing the above exercise respondents will
take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance D
with recruitment rules to be framed for the purpose. The
applicants who have worked as teachers in past should be
first considered for the posts and only if they are found
unsuitable should candidates from sources like the
Employment Exchange be considered; (iv) Once the proce-
dure outlined above is completed all persons selected E
should be appointed on a regular basis and on remunera-
tion admissible to the regular teachers of the primary
school; (v) Similar procedure should also be followed in
respect of posts of peon giving Shri Tadas an opportunity of
competing for regular appointment; (vi) Till the exercise
outlined above is completed which we hope will be done F
before the academic year 1989-90 commences the present
procedure may continue and such of the applicants as are
selected for appointment will be subject to the same condi-
tions of service as before."

The Union of India and the officers of the ordnance factory have G
challenged the validity of these directions in Civil Appeal No. 233/
1991. The respondents who have not been recruited as per the direc-
tions of the Tribunal have preferred Civil Appeal No. 480/1989.

We have considered the submissions of counsel on both sides in
the light of the material on record. At the outset we may point out that H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

there is no evidence that the respondents were appointed as teachers
A on honorarium by or on behalf of the Central Government. There is
also no evidence that the respondents were initially appointed in the
Primary School and later they were shifted to the Secondary School.
The fact, however, remains that when the respondents moved the
Tribunal for reliefs they were only teaching in the Secondary School. It
B is undisputed that the Central Government has not sanctioned the
Secondary School nor created any posts thereto. The Central Gove:n-
ment has only sanctioned the Primary School and the posts connected
therewith. Those posts are being occupied by regularly recruited
teachers.

The Tribunal, however, has directed the Central Government
.-
c immediately to take up an assessment of the needs of the School to
carry on its activities at the present level and to create a sufficient
number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis. The Tribunal has
further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up the
newly created posts in accordance with the recruitment rules to be
D framed for the purpose. These directions are indeed amazing. It has
compelled the Government to sanction the Secondary School, create
adequate number of posts and fill up the posts after framing the
recruitment rules for the purpose. There is no law requiring the Cent-
ral Government to sanction the Secondary School. The Central
Government has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in sanc-
E tioning or running classes beyond the Primary School level. It is a
policy matter involving financial burden. No Court or the Tribunal
could compel the Government to change its policy involving expendi-
ture. The Tribunal therefore, could not have, issued the directions as it
did to compel the Central Government to assess the needs of the ~.
school and create the necessary posts without support of law.
F
Secondly, the respondents are not paid by the Central Govern-
ment. They are not holding any appointment under the Central
Government. There is no relationship of master and servant between
the Central Government and the respondents. The respondents are
employed in the Secondary School by local arrangement made by the
G officers of the ordnance factory. It is not proved that how the Central
Government is accountable to such arrangement made by the local
officers.

Thirdly, Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
confers no jurisdiction, power and authority on the Tribunal to deal
H with the service matters of the-employees like the respondents.
U.0.1. v. T.P. BOMBHATE (SHETIT, J.] 689

In any view of the matter, the respondents cannot claim the A
pay-scale admissible to the Government school teachers much less
regularisation of their services by the Central Government. The direc-
tions issued by the Tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained. They are
apparently unjustified and without authority of law.

In the result we allow the Civil Appeal No. 233/1991, and set B
aside the order of the Tribunal. The Civil Appeal No. 480/ 1989 is
dismissed. In the circumstances of the cases, however, we make no
order as to costs.

· S.B.
CA No. 233/91 allowed
and CA No 480/89 dismissed.

)