Workers engaged by Parent-Teacher Associations lack an employer-employee relationship with the State for salary parity claims.

The respondents were engaged as Sweepers and Chaukidars in government educational institutions for over 10 years.

They filed a writ petition seeking "equal pay for equal work."

On 21.02.2022, a Single Judge directed the State to pay them the minimum of the pay scale admissible to their respective posts.

The State challenged this order, contending that the respondents were not government employees but were engaged and paid by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) from its own independent sources.

During the pendency of the appeal, an advertisement for 2,364 Group-D posts through outsourcing was issued, but the respondents faced disqualification due to being overage.

1. Whether workers engaged and paid by a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) are entitled to pay parity with regular government servants under the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Whether the Court can grant age relaxation to long-serving PTA employees to enable them to apply for government outsourcing positions.

The Court applied the principle of employer-employee privity, establishing that liability for pay parity or minimum pay scales rests solely upon the legal employer of the claimant.

It further utilized the equitable doctrine of judicial discretion to grant age relaxation for public employment eligibility, ensuring that long-term service in government-related institutions is not rendered moot by technical age bars.

The Court observed that the respondents did not dispute the State’s contention that they were engaged by the PTA rather than the Education Department.

The Court reasoned that since there was no direct employment relationship between the State of Uttarakhand and the respondents, the State could not be held liable for maintaining pay parity or paying the minimum of the government pay scale.

The Single Judge had failed to consider the specific evidence in the counter-affidavit regarding the PTA's role as the employer.

However, acknowledging the respondents' 10 years of satisfactory service in Government Inter Colleges, the Court found it equitable to protect their right to seek future employment via the new outsourcing advertisement.

However, the Court directed that the respondents' claims for engagement through outsourcing must be considered on merit.

Crucially, the Court ordered that the period served by the respondents in Government Institutions must be excluded when determining their age, effectively granting them age relaxation.

The State Counsel was directed to communicate this order immediately to the Director, Secondary Education, to prevent the rejection of their applications on age-related grounds.