Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TEJRAM PARASHRAMJI BOMBHATE AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1991
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 570 1991 SCR (2) 685
1991 SCC (3) 11 JT 1991 (2) 572
1991 SCALE (1)907
ACT:
Civil Service: Primary School catering to education
needs of children of employees in ordinance factories-
Teachers paid honorarium not full salary out of school fees-
Teachers cannot claim pay scale of Government School
Teachers-Central Administrative Tribunal cannot compel
government to assess needs of school and create necessary
posts.
HEADNOTE:
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 ordance factory
at Ambazari. The employees on their own in the same
premises opened a secondary school with classes VI to X.
The respondents are teachers 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 service and demanded equal
pay for equal work.
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
Tribunal further directed the Central Government to take
steps to fill up 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 of the
Tribunal, the Court.
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 undisputed
686
that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
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 the Central Government to sanction the Secondary
School. The Central Government has taken a decision that it
will not involve itself in sanctioning 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
expenditure. [688D-E]
3. The respondents are not paid by the Central
Government. There is 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 Tribunal Act,
1985 confers 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]
5. The directions of the Tribunal are apparently
unjustified and without authority of law so cannot be
sustained. [688F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 233 of
1991 etc.
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.V, Subba
Rao, S.K. Gambhir, Dr. B. L. Wadhera, Sudarshan Menon, P.
Parameshwaran and G.D. Gupta for the appearing parties.
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 ordnances
factory at Ambazari the Central Government has sanctioned
and is running a Primary School from classes I to V. In the
same premises, the employees
687
of the ordance factory, by their own arrangement are also
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 Tribunal
seeking regularisation of their services and demanding equal
pay for equal work. The Tribunal has allowed their claim
with certain directions to the appellants including the
Union of India. The directions issued by the Tribunal are
as follows:
"(i) The respondents will immediately take up an
assessment of the needs of the school to carry on
its activities at their present level and the
number of additional teachers 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
on a regular basis; (iii) After completing the
above exercise respondents will take steps to fill
up the newly created posts in accordance 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 procedure outlined above is completed
all persons selected should be appointed on a
regular basis and on remuneration 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 appontment; (vi) Till the
exercise outlined above is completed which we hope
will be done 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 conditions
of service as before."
The Union of India and the officers of the ordnance
factory have challenged the validity of these directions in
Civil Appeal No. 233/1991. The respondents who have not been
recruited as per the directions 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
688
there is no evidence that the respondents were appointed as
teachers 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 latter
they were shifted to the Secondary School. The fact,
however, remains that when the respondents moved the
Tribunal for relies they were only teaching in the Secondary
School. It is undisputed that the Central Government has
not sanctioned the Secondary School nor created any posts
thereto. the Central Government 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 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 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 Central Government
to sanction the Secondary School. the Central Government
has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in
sanctioning 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 expenditure. The Tribunal
therefore, could not have, 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.
Secondly, the respondents are not paid by the Central
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Government. 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 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 with the service matters of the
employees like the respondents.
689
In any view of the matter, the respondents cannot claim
the pay-scale admissible to the Government school teachers
much less regularisation of their services by the Central
Government. The directions issued by the Tribunal
therefore, cannot be sustained. They are apparently
injustified and without authority of law.
In the result we allow the Civil Appeal No. 233/1991,
and set aside the order of the Tribunal. the Civil Appeal
No. 480/1989 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the
case, however, we make no order as to costs.
S.B. CA No. 233/91 allowed
and CA No. 480/89 dismissed.
690