Pay parity for teachers: High court pulls up govt

The high court on Friday came down heavily on the state government in its orders for creating difference in grant of five stagnation increment to teachers of private aided educational institutions in comparison with government schoolteachers.

A single judge of the high court, on February 8, 2001, directed the government to grant five stagnation increments to schoolteachers and headmasters—who were petitioners—with effect from April 1, 1996, and directed that the order should be complied in three months.

The petitioners had challenged a special memorandum issued on July 14, 2009, in which pay fixation for government schoolteachers came into effect from April 1, 1996. For private aided institutions, pay fixation came into effect from June 25, 1998. Hence, schoolteachers of private aided educational institutions challenged the difference of two years. After the single judge passed the order, it was challenged by the state government. 

A division bench headed by acting chief justice Vikramajit Sen rejected the state government’s appeal on Friday. It came down heavily on the government, observing: “There can be no cavil that standards in private aided educational institutions are better than those in government schools”

“It would be of travesty of justice if government teachers receive a pay package that is better than their counterparts in private aided institutions when it is the common perception that every aspect of discipline teaching and examination results are appreciably better in the latter.”

The division bench further observed that the “state government should establish that its economic capacity is sufficient and adequate so as to ensure parity of emoluments and financial benefits to all teachers working in the state.”

The bench further observed that: “A perusal of the provisions of section 49 of the Education Act, 1983, will disclose that it does not postulate the creation of a deliberate distinction and division between these two groups of teachers.” “What it prescribes is that the quantum of grant in aid shall be dependent in the economic capacity of the State section-87 of the Karnataka Education Act, which describes a definite parity between the two groups of teachers in so far as the minimum qualification for recruitment age of recruitment benefits of retirement are concerned logically indicates the identity of treatment to all the teachers,” it said.

Therefore, since both the sets of teachers are similarly placed, dealing with them differently would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It will also be against the principle of equal pay for equal work, said the bench.