JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is a joint writ petition filed by 335 teachers appointed by the Nagaland Mission Society under Rashtriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan (RMSA) challenging the Office Memorandum No. NLD/RMSA/ISSE-1/2018/104, dated 17.08.2018, along with other consequential orders issued by the Nagaland Mission Society, RMSA by which their monthly salaries which was paid at the rate of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. was sought to be reduced to Rs. 25,000/- p.m. from 2018-19. 2. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Asenla and also heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondents assisted by Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate. The case of the petitioners as submitted by their counsel is as follows; 2.1. That Nagaland Education Mission Society vide their advertisement No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14, dated 14.12.2013, invited applications in prescribed format for filling up 951 post of Secondary Teachers in several subjects and Sports Instructors, and the petitioners in response to the same applied in the prescribed format and, thereafter appeared in the recruitment test, and in the result declared on 27.11.2015 their names were mentioned among the selected candidates. And while all these was going on, the State Government, vide Notification No. DSE/RMSA-Upgradation/2011, dated 28.10.2015, accorded sanction for creation of 112 post of Headmasters in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100/- with Grade pay of Rs. 5400/- per month and 627 post of Graduate Teachers in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay at Rs. 4200/- per month under RMSA for the 112 upgraded Government High Schools. Thereafter, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education through his letter No. DSE/RMSA-Upgradation/2011, dated 27/11/2015, conveyed to the Mission Director, RMSA Nagaland, approval of the Government of Nagaland for selection of 627 Graduate Teachers and 112 Headmasters under RMSA. Following the approval, on 02/09/2016, 528 persons including some of the petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers with a fixed pay of Rs. 31,315/- per month. However, 198 of the selected candidates were kept in waiting list but subsequently by another order No. ED/RMSA-GT/APTT/24/2016, dated 02.05.2016, 111 persons out of 198 were appointed under the same terms and conditions. 2.2. That by another advertisement bearing No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14, dated 17.03.2016, 26 posts of teachers in MIL and 74 posts of Maths Teachers were advertised by Nagaland Education Mission Society, RMSA. 2.2. That by another advertisement bearing No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14, dated 17.03.2016, 26 posts of teachers in MIL and 74 posts of Maths Teachers were advertised by Nagaland Education Mission Society, RMSA. Some of the writ petitioners also applied for the same and appeared in the recruitment test. In the result declared, vide Notification No. RMS A/51-100/2016/2013-14, dated 31.08.2016, their names were among the selected candidates. Pursuant thereof they were appointed to the post they were selected for vide orders issued on 11.11.2016 with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- 2.3. That while they were continuing in service enjoying their pay at the rate of Rs. 31,315/- pm, as given in their appointment orders, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education merged the centrally sponsored schemes namely, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) into Samaghra Shiksha Abhiyan and following the merger the pay of the Secondary Teachers (category of the petitioners) was sought to be reduced by the State respondents to Rs. 25,000/- p.m, vide Office Memorandum No. No. NLD/RMSMSSE-1/2018/104, dated 17.08.2018, and the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons were directed to submit their acceptance letters in the prescribed format within a period of one month from the date the Office memorandum was issued. The Office memorandum was later modified vide Corrigendum, dated 18.8.2018, to the extent that the period of one month shall be counted from 18.08.2018. And thereafter, by another Notification No. NLD/RMSA/ISSE-1/2018, dated Nil August 2018, the petitioners were asked to attend duties and accept the new pay or face disciplinary action under rules. 2.4. That since the petitioners were appointed against 627 posts of Graduate Teachers which were sanctioned with Pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- in the Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- p.m notified vide Notification No. DSE/RMSA-Upgradation/2011, dated 28.10.2015, the respondents were duty bound to pay them at that scale of pay instead their monthly salaries were sought to be reduced even from the rate they were paid at the time of their appointment, therefore, the impugned memorandum along with the corrigendum and the follow up notifications issued are illegal and they deserves to be quashed and set aside. That in the conditions of the appointment of the petitioners, reduction of pay was never one of the conditions. Therefore, the respondents cannot reduce the monthly pay of the petitioners according to their whims and fancies. That in the conditions of the appointment of the petitioners, reduction of pay was never one of the conditions. Therefore, the respondents cannot reduce the monthly pay of the petitioners according to their whims and fancies. Moreover, the impugned order and the orders issued thereafter are arbitrary and dictatorial and the same has no place in the scheme of our Constitution. 2.5. That the impugned order is also discriminatory because persons who were selected and appointed by the same authority in the same manner were allowed to enjoy the pay scale of the post as per the advertisement and their case have been exempted. The learned counsel in support of the assertion made submitted that vide Advertisement No. EDS/EXAM/2010-11, dated 09.12.2011, issued by the respondents, applications were invited for filling up 2856 posts of Primary Teachers and Graduate Teachers for elementary level under SSA and secondary education under RMS A in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2400/- for Elementary Teachers and, Rs. 9300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- for secondary teachers. And following the advertisement and recruitment test held, several persons were appointed to the post advertised and they were paid monthly salaries as per the advertisement. The learned counsel, thereafter referred to, 2(two) appointment orders which she claimed were issued in pursuance of the recruitment test held as per advertisement No. ED/EXAM/2010-2011, dated 9.12.2011. The first appointment order is, No. EDS/ESTT-TSG-RMSA-9GH/12, dated 23/03/2013, issued by the Principal Director, School Education, Government of Nagaland, appointing one Smti Shanjila Chang as Graduate Teacher in the pay band as mentioned above. The second one is, appointment order No. EDS/ESTT-ZBTO/SSA-11 G/12, dated 26.03.2013, issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland, appointing one Smti Inakali V. Zhimo as Graduate Teacher (Maths), in the pay band mentioned above. After having submitted as stated above, the learned counsel continued her submission by stating that the pay and allowances of all those who were appointed under the advertisement mentioned above have been kept intact while that of the petitioners have been sought to be reduced by the impugned Office Memorandum. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners alone have been single out for discriminatory treatment which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners alone have been single out for discriminatory treatment which is not permissible under the law. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners should be paid their monthly salaries as mentioned in the post creation order, dated 28.10.2015, as was done in the case of the persons who were appointed as the advertisement mentioned above to maintain equal pay for equal work. In support of her submission the learned counsel referred to 4(four) judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court The citations along with relevant portions of the judgments are given here below one after the other; (i). Bhagwan Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 634 , paragraphs-13 & 14. "13. Lastly we have to deal with the contention that the Scheme is a temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to the temporary nature of the Scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating. 'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of 'Equal pay for equal work' is attracted. As regards the effect of the breaks given at the end of every six months, we will deal with this aspect shortly hereafter. That however is no ground for refusing aspect the 'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Be it realized that we are concerned with the 'Equal work Equal pay' doctrine only within the parameters of the four grounds and the fact situation discussed hereinabove. We are not called upon, and we have no need or occasion to consider the applicability or otherwise of the said doctrine outside these parameters. For instance we are not required to express any opinion in the context of employment of similar nature under different employers, or in different cadres under the same or different employers. Nor-are we concerned with questions required to be dealt with by authorities like the Pay Commissions such as equation of cadres or determination of parity-differential between different cadres or making assessment of work loads or qualitative differential based on relevant considerations and such other matters. Nor-are we concerned with questions required to be dealt with by authorities like the Pay Commissions such as equation of cadres or determination of parity-differential between different cadres or making assessment of work loads or qualitative differential based on relevant considerations and such other matters. We are concerned in the present matter with employees of the same employer doing same work of same nature discharged in the same department but appointed on a temporary basis instead of in a regular cadre on a regular basis. We have therefore decided the questions raised before us in the backdrop of facts of the present case. On the other dimensions of the doctrine we remain silent as there is no need or occasion to speak. 14. In the result we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be paid on the same basis of same pay scale as per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging similar duties as Supervisors just like the petitioners, are being paid." (ii). State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in : (2017) 1 SCC 148 , paragraphs-56 to 60. "56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court. 57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny .5 fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny .5 fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:- "Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays." India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee - whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post." (iii). Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618 , paragraphs-7 to 9. "7. Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union of India, Makhan Singh v. Union of India & Ors. where reference was made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India describing the principle of equal pay for equal work as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Art. 14. We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. 8. It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 8. It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Art. 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Art. 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Art. 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'To each according to his need', it must atleast mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour. Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too. Under provisions in Section 31(g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance (vide: International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p. 265). The preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art. 39(d) we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal work' is deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though these drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. 9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not a principle which the Courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the drivers-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from 1st January, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect." (iv). State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 556 , paragraphs -16 & 17. "16. The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and applied in many reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been adequately explained and crystalised and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the irresponsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. Functions may be the same but the irresponsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bonafide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount of discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court. 17. Since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be." 2.6. That the merger of the centrally sponsored schemes under SSA and RMS A into Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan is to remove the artificial divide between elementary and secondary school education but for the salaries to be paid to the teachers it was left to the State to determine as per the norms in existence and the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Human resources development generally and not as fixed pay for secondary teachers. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in seeking to reduce the pay of the petitioners from Rs. 31,315/- to Rs. 25,000/- and in the issuing of the notification asking the petitioners to submit letters of acceptance. That as per the Meeting Minutes of the project approval board of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, dated 17.05.2018, the Central Government provided a sum of Rs. 31,315/- to Rs. 25,000/- and in the issuing of the notification asking the petitioners to submit letters of acceptance. That as per the Meeting Minutes of the project approval board of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, dated 17.05.2018, the Central Government provided a sum of Rs. 20952.00 lacs as its share for the elementary and secondary education and the State share was fixed at Rs. 2328.00 lacs. Therefore, it appears from here that though the central Government may give only Rs. 25,000/- per month to the teachers, the State has to make up the shortfall in the pay of the teachers salaries. As such, the State Government cannot wash its hands off the responsibilities and, reduce the pay of the petitioners. 2.7. That being aggrieved the petitioners went on protest and demanded revocation of the impugned Office Memorandum, dated 17.08.2018, and also submitted 2(two) representations, one on 06.09.2018 and the other on 09.09.2018 to the respondent No. 5 and the Chief Minister of Nagaland requesting for intervention but no favourable response was received and, that has compelled them to come before this Court. 3. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Mr. K. Sema submitted that it is true that the petitioners were appointed as per the Advertisement, dated 14.12.2013, on contract basis under RMSA scheme with appointment orders issued by the Mission Director of RMS A but they were not appointed against substantive post in the Education Department of the State of Nagaland therefore, they cannot ask for parity in service conditions with those who were appointed as per the Advertisement, dated 09.12.2011, which was issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Ex-officio Principal Director, School Education and whose appointment orders were issued by the Principal Director to substantive post created by the Government of Nagaland as per the appointment order copies referred to by the petitioners. 4. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General also submitted that the petitioners were appointed to post which are co-terminus with the scheme and they accepted their appointment orders wherein their monthly salaries were clearly stated. In fact at the time of their appointment they also signed a contract/bond along with a declaration/affidavit wherein it is stated that their service is purely contractual and their salaries will depend on the release of fund from the Government of India. In fact at the time of their appointment they also signed a contract/bond along with a declaration/affidavit wherein it is stated that their service is purely contractual and their salaries will depend on the release of fund from the Government of India. Therefore, they cannot now turn around and say that they were appointed against post with a pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- and grade pay of Rs. 4200/- and their pay cannot be reduced. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, further submitted that the new scheme under which the monthly salaries of the petitioners is sought to be reduced to Rs. 25,000/- per month is as per the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs taken in their meeting held on 28/03/2018 which was conveyed through a letter, dated 03/04/2018, by the Joint Secretary School Education-1, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education. As such, it is not a decision taken by the State respondents on their own. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General referred to Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 which is a copy of the letter referred to by him in support of his submission. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General also submitted that the petitioners have not challenged this new scheme of the Government of India based on which the impugned Office Memorandum was issued by the Nagaland State Mission Society, therefore, the writ petition in its present form is not maintainable. 5. Mr. K. Sema also submitted that the advertisement of the post to which the petitioners were appointed was issued by RMSA and their pay was also determined by RMS A and not by the State, whereas the pay of the appointees under the Advertisement, dated 14.12.2013, against whom the petitioners claim they have been discriminated, the advertisement was issued by the Education Department of the State and their pay was determined by the State Government and, their appointment was also issued by the State Government. Therefore, obviously, the State Government has to frame or re-frame the pay of the petitioners as per the scheme notified by the central Government from time to time and there is nothing they can do to prevent it. 6. Mr. Therefore, obviously, the State Government has to frame or re-frame the pay of the petitioners as per the scheme notified by the central Government from time to time and there is nothing they can do to prevent it. 6. Mr. K. Sema in support of his submission that since the scheme has not been challenged the consequential orders cannot be challenged referred to the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (i). Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1183 . The relevant paragraph-15 & 16 are given here below; "15. Grounds 3 and 4 of the appellant that the Regional Transport Authority acted illegally in curtailing the period of renewal and that, in any event, it did not apply its mind in dealing with the renewal application but mechanically followed the provisions of the scheme may now be considered. 16. The Regional Transport Authority was by the terms of the scheme left no discretion in the matter. It was by the scheme that the right of the appellant was restricted and if the scheme became final and binding the Regional Transport Authority had no authority to permit the appellant to ply his vehicles. The order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was purely consequential on the scheme, and if the scheme is not open to challenge, orders consequential thereon will not also be open to challenge. We are supported in this view by the observations of this Court in Abdul Gafoor: Proprietor, Shaheen Motor Service v. The State of Mysore that: "It appears to us that when deciding what action to take under s. 68F(1) the authority is tied down by the terms and conditions of the approved scheme and his duty is merely to do what is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the schemes. The refusal to entertain applications for renewal of permits or cancellation of permits or modification of terms of existing permits really flow from the scheme. The duty is therefore merely mechanical and it will be incorrect to say that there is in these matters any lie between the existing operators and the State Transport Authority. There is no justification therefore for saying that when taking action under s. 68F(2) is really independent of the issue of the permits under s. 68F(1). The duty is therefore merely mechanical and it will be incorrect to say that there is in these matters any lie between the existing operators and the State Transport Authority. There is no justification therefore for saying that when taking action under s. 68F(2) is really independent of the issue of the permits under s. 68F(1). Once the scheme has been approved, action under s. 68F(1) flows from it and at the same time action under s. 68F(2) flows from the same scheme". We are bound by the decision." 7. In support of his submission that appointment is governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment, therefore, the petitioners cannot now ask for different pay other than what they have accepted at the time of their appointment the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of; (i). State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Anita & Avar., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 293 , paragraphs-14 to 16. The relevant paragraphs are given here below:- "14. It is relevant to note that the respondents at the time of appointment have accepted an agreement in accordance with Appendix 'B' attached to Government Resolution dated 15.09.2006. The terms of the agreement specifically lay down that the appointment is purely contractual and that the respondents will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest and benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the government. We may usefully refer to the relevant clauses in the format of the agreement which read as under:-- "1. The First Party hereby agrees to appoint Shri/Smt.__________(Party No. II) as a ________on contract basis for a period of 11 months commencing from___________to __________(mention date) on consolidated remuneration of Rs. ____________(Rupees _____________only) per month, and said remuneration will be payable at the end of each calendar month according to British Calendar. It is agreed that IInd party shall not be entitled for separate T.A. and D.A. during the contract period.... 2. .......... 3. ......... 4. ........... 5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a further two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to the satisfaction of Competent Authority, and on its recommendations. 6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest, benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the Government." 15. .......... 3. ......... 4. ........... 5. Assignment of 11 months contract is renewable for a further two terms of 11 months (i.e. total 3 terms), subject to the satisfaction of Competent Authority, and on its recommendations. 6. The Party No. II will not be entitled to claim any rights, interest, benefits whatsoever of the permanent service in the Government." 15. The above terms of the agreement further reiterate the stand of the State that the appointments were purely contractual and that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any right or interest of permanent service in the government. The appointments of respondents were made initially for eleven months but were renewed twice and after serving the maximum contractual period, the services of the respondents came to an end and the Government initiated a fresh process of selection. Conditions of respondents' engagement is governed by the terms of agreement. After having accepted contractual appointment, the respondents are estopped from challenging the terms of their appointment. Furthermore, respondents are not precluded from applying for the said posts afresh subject to the satisfaction of other eligibility criteria. 16. The High Court did not keep in view the various clauses in the Government Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 and also the terms of the agreement entered into by the respondents with the government. Creation of posts was only for administrative purposes for sanction of the amount towards expenditure incurred but merely because the posts were created, they cannot be held to be permanent in nature. When the government has taken a policy decision to fill up 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors on contractual basis, the tribunal and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the policy decision to hold that the appointments are permanent in nature." (ii). In addition to the above he also submitted that the petitioners cannot be allowed to a probate and reprobate regarding the pay they have already accepted and referred to the paragraph-15 & 16 of the judgment passed in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & Anr. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 . The relevant paragraphs are given here below; "Approbate and Reprobate 15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 . The relevant paragraphs are given here below; "Approbate and Reprobate 15. A party cannot be permitted to "blow hot-blow cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate". Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself. This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner, so as to violate the principles of, what is right and, of good conscience. 16. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had." 8. Mr. K. Sema also submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality therefore the petitioners cannot seek advantage of a wrong order. Elaborating his submission Mr. K. Sema submitted that in the appointment order of those who were appointed under the Advertisement, dated 14.12.2013, the word RMSA was mentioned by mistake. It was not supposed to be there since the advertisement did not mention anything about RMSA. Therefore, just because RMSA was mentioned in the appointment order does not mean that they were appointed under RMSA. They are a different category altogether and not under the same category with the petitioners. In support of his submission, Mr. K. Sema referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532 , paragraph-16. The relevant portion is cited here below, "16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. The relevant portion is cited here below, "16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities. In the State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma it was held as under: (SCC p. 337, para 15) "15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake." 9. Regarding the claim of the petitioners for equal pay for equal work, the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General submitted that the petitioners and the appointees under the advertisement No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14 dated 14.12.2013 are altogether different in the nature of their appointments, therefore, the principles of equal pay for equal work is not applicable. The learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , paragraphs 43-44, paragraphs- 54.3-55 and paragraph-49.1. The relevant paragraphs are given here below, "43. We shall now venture to summarize the conclusions recorded by this Court, with reference to a claim of pay parity, raised by temporary employees (differently designated as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad- hoc, contractual, and the like), in the following two paragraphs. 44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work, with reference to regular employees:- 44.1. In the Dhirendra Chamoli case this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation - in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society. 44.2. The prayer was accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation - in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society. 44.2. In the Surinder Singh case this Court held, that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case. 44.3. In the Bhagwan Dass case this Court recorded, that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis. 44.4 In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case this Court held, that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary employee, at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre, alongwith dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 44.5. In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh this Court held, that daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 44.6 In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity - if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned cadre. 44.7. The judgment rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned cadre. 44.7. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a three-Judge bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified. 44.8. In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, based on decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' had been invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments. 44.9. In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer. 49.1. We are of the considered view, that in paragraph 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of 'equality' would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of 'equality' could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by making such a direction. 54.3. Based on the consideration recorded hereinabove, the determination in the impugned judgment rendered by the full bench of the High Court, whereby it classified temporary employees for differential treatment on the subject of wages, is clearly unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside. 55. In view of all our above conclusions, the decision rendered by the full bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 14796 of 2003), dated 11.11.2011, is liable to be set aside, and the same is hereby set aside. The decision rendered by the division bench of the High Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPA no. 337 of 2003, decided on 7.1.2009) is also liable to be set aside, and the same is also hereby set aside. We affirm the decision rendered in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA no. 1024 of 2009, decided on 30.8.2010), with the modification, that the concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them." Lastly, the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray & Ors., reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 , paragraph-3 to 5, paragraph 8, 9, 16, 17, 26 & 27. "3. The State Government has passed the orders fixing the pay of these petitioners at the minimum of the regular pay-scale attached to the respective posts. To demonstrate, by way of example, in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat, who was engaged as a daily wager, the pay is fixed at Rs. 15330/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200/- attached to the said post. To demonstrate, by way of example, in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat, who was engaged as a daily wager, the pay is fixed at Rs. 15330/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200/- attached to the said post. Break up of the aforesaid salary fixing is as under: At the time of passing the order, he was getting monthly wage of Rs. 11,300/- as the daily wager. His salary, therefore, stands enhanced of Rs. 4030/-. In addition, he is given arrears in the sum of Rs. 5,93,887/-. In similar manner, pay of all the petitioners has been fixed. 4. The petitioners are, however, not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation and contended that the pay fixation has not been done as per the orders of this Court. The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay-scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. In other words, they pleaded that fixation of pay at the minimum of the pay- scale is uncalled for and does not amount to complying with the directions of the Court in full measure. It is also submitted that in some other cases where the High Court has given similar directions, which are followed in their cases, the State Government has not only fixed pay in the regular pay-scale but has also been granting increments etc. as well. 5. The case set up by the respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioners are daily wage employees. They have not been 'regularised' in their respective posts for want of adequate number of regular vacancies. They are granted 'permanency' in terms of standing orders which, at the most, entitles them to get the pay which is given to employees appointed on regular basis but such an entitlement is to the minimum of the said pay- scale. It is also argued that even the direction of the High Court was to grant pay in the regular pay-scale with effect from the date of classification orders and there is no direction given by the High Court to give them increments etc. It is also argued that even the direction of the High Court was to grant pay in the regular pay-scale with effect from the date of classification orders and there is no direction given by the High Court to give them increments etc. which is admissible only when a person is appointed on regular basis or whose services are regularised, which has not happened in the case of the petitioners. 8. It is further submitted that the High Court specifically went into the question as to whether, on attaining permanency, these petitioners were entitled to the pay-scale attached to the post which is given to the regularly recruited employee and answered the said question in the affirmative. Our attention was drawn to one such order dated 8th May, 2008 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1306 of 2008 where this issue is specifically dealt with in detail and decided in favour of the petitioners, after taking note of various judgments. It was further pointed out that in some other cases, increments are also given while fixing pay in the regular pay-scale. Example of one such case given by the petitioner is State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bhasker Sharma wherein the Writ Appeal was also dismissed. It was submitted that after the dismissal of the appeal, Bhasker Sharma was not only granted regular pay- scale but is getting increments and other benefits attached to the said post as well. It was also argued that many such employees have been given similar benefits and the State Government has now taken a 'U' turn and is not willing to extend such benefits to the petitioners herein. Copies of many such orders passed by the High Court are filed by the petitioners as additional documents in support of their submissions. 9. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, who appeared on behalf of the State Government and the Contemnors emphasised that the only direction of the High Court, which has been upheld by this Court, is that these petitioners are entitled to pay in a regular scale. It is argued that they have been classified as "permanent" because of the aforesaid standing orders which means that their services would not be terminated. However, that does not mean that the petitioners are regularised against any posts. It is argued that they have been classified as "permanent" because of the aforesaid standing orders which means that their services would not be terminated. However, that does not mean that the petitioners are regularised against any posts. It was also argued that each of these petitioners have been given substantial amount as arrears of pay in terms of the orders passed by the High Court and there is significant enhancement in the monthly emoluments now drawn by these petitioners. 16. Another significant reason for referring to the judgment of Jagjit Singh is that the Court culled out the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' from the earlier judgments on the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the Court also drew an important distinction between the grant of benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees on the one hand and the status of regular employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of principles of 'equal pay for equal work' deduced by the Court are concerned (para 42), our purpose of deduction stated in sub-para vi thereof is important, which is reproduced below: "42.6. For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see - Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty)." 17. Insofar as distinction between pay parity and regularisation of service is concerned, referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi, the Court made the following observations: "49.1. We are of the considered view, that in paragraph 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of 'equality' would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of 'equality' could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by making such a direction. " Thus, it follows that even if principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable, temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of the pay-scale which is attached to the post, but without any increments. 26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. 27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms." 10. Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC who appears on behalf of the Union of India submitted that the Central Government is responsible for payment of teachers salaries only upto 90% of the total amount and the State Government is responsible for payment of 10%, therefore, the Central Government is responsible for only 90% of Rs. 25,000/-. 11. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the submissions of the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General submitted that the post to which the petitioners were appointed were advertised and they were appointed after proper selection process, therefore, they should be given their pay scale and their pay cannot be reduced in any manner. 12. On careful reading of the pleadings of the petitioners I find that their main grievance is on the proposal to reduce their pay from a sum of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. to a sum of Rs. 12. On careful reading of the pleadings of the petitioners I find that their main grievance is on the proposal to reduce their pay from a sum of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and non payment of their monthly salary at the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- p.m. which they claim were the Pay Band and Grade Pay of Graduate Teachers fixed at the time the post to which they are appointed were created. Their prayer is also limited to that extend and the same are reproduced here below, "In the premise aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that your lordship will graciously be pleased to admit this petition, called for records and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause(s) as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction should not be granted and upon cause/causes being shown be pleased to make the rule absolute in the following terms;- Question and set aside: (a) Impugned Office Memorandum bearing No. NLD/RMSA/ISSE-1/2018/104 dated Kohima 17th August 2018 reducing the salaries of the petitioners. (b) Impugned Corrigendum being No. NLD/RMSA/ISSA-1/2018 dated 18th August 2018 directing the petitioners to submit their acceptance of the new salary within a months' time. (c) Impugned Notification dated 27th August 2018 threatening the petitioners with action under Rule 22 and 25 of the Nagaland Servants Rules 1968 on failure to comply with notice. -And- And direct the respondents to; (d) Provide the petitioners their post creation pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- p.m. And in the interim, pending disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the impugned OM dated 17.08.2018 and Corrigendum dated 18.08.2018. And/or pass any such order(s)/direction(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case." 13. Keeping in view what has been stated above, the discussion will be strictly confine to the pleadings which are related to the prayers. And/or pass any such order(s)/direction(s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case." 13. Keeping in view what has been stated above, the discussion will be strictly confine to the pleadings which are related to the prayers. On 14.12.2013, the Nagaland Education Mission Society, RMSA through Advertisement No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14, dated 14.12.2013, invited willing/interested candidates to apply for 951 post of Graduate Teachers in English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science and Sport Instructor for Secondary School under the establishment of RMS A. The Advertisement is reproduced here below; "Government of Nagaland Nagaland Education Mission Society Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Nagaland :Kohima Advertisement for Recruitment of Teachers and Sports Instructors Under RMSA Dated Kohima, the 14th December, 2013 No. RMSA/EXAM/2013-14. Applications in the prescribed format are invited from indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland for filling up of the following posts for secondary schools under the establishment of RMSA. Vacancies from 35 schools sanctioned during 2009-10. Minimum prescribed educational qualification for the different posts are as follows; Note: Preference shall be given to candidates with Honours or Major/Post Graduate in subject concerned. 2. Preference will be given to candidates having professional qualification/Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) for teaching Secondary education. 3. All appointments are contractual and shall be co-terminus with RMSA Scheme, Payment of salaries to the selected teachers is subjected to the release of fund by MHRD, GOI. 4. Vacancy position, District-wise, School-wise and subject-wise can be obtained along with application form from the office of the DEOs. 5. The minimum age of a candidate shall not be less than 21 years and shall not be more than 30 years of age as on 01/01/2014. The upper age limit is relaxable by 5(five) years of the candidate belonging to ST/SC. Age relaxation for serving Government employees will be allowed the equal numbers of years they are in service subject to a minimum of five years. 6. Upper age limit for the physically challenged will be relaxable by 10(ten) years. 7. 3% post reservation for the physically challenged will be maintained as per Government Notification No. AR-3/GEN/9/97 Dated 16-01-2008. 8. The candidate should be willing to serve anywhere in the State of Nagaland. 9. The following documents duly attested by a competent officer should be submitted along with the Application Form. a. HSLC/HSSLC/PU/Degree Admit Card, Mark sheet, Academic and Professional certificates. b. Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. 8. The candidate should be willing to serve anywhere in the State of Nagaland. 9. The following documents duly attested by a competent officer should be submitted along with the Application Form. a. HSLC/HSSLC/PU/Degree Admit Card, Mark sheet, Academic and Professional certificates. b. Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. c. Schedule Tribe Certificate. d. Employment Exchange Card. e. 4(four) copies of recent colour passport size photographs. 10. Incomplete applications shall be summarily rejected without information. 11. Terms and conditions will be available in the form and pasted in the notice board of the office and along with the application form. 12. Application Form will be issued from the respective District Education Officer @Rs. 100/- in cash on any working day from 10th January 2014 to 20th January 2014. 13. Examination fee of Rs. 400/- should be submitted along with Application Forms. 14. Written Examination will be conducted all the District Headquarter, the date for which shall be notified in local English newspapers and call letters shall be issued to all eligible candidates by post as per the examination address furnished in the application form. 15. Candidates applying for the post of Sports Instructor shall be called for Viva Voce Interview without having to undergo written test. Call letter to the eligible candidates shall be sent through post. 16. Viva voce for the different subjects shall be conducted centrally at State Headquarter for the successful candidates of the written examination. 17. The application should be addressed to the Mission Director, RMSA, Old Assembly Secretariat, Kohima-797001 and will be received till 31st Jan. 2014. No application will be entertained after the specified date. Sd/- (Thejao Vihienuo) State Mission Director RMSA: Kohima." 14. It is clear from the advertisement that the same was issued by the Mission Director of RMS A and the appointments were to be contractual and co-terminus with the RMSA scheme and payment of salaries were to be subject to release of fund by the MHRD, Government of India. Further, it can also be seen that the selection process was to be consisted of written examination and viva voce. After completion of the selection process, the provisional result was published in the month of November, 2015 (date not given), on the top of the result it was given as follows; "Government of Nagaland Nagaland Education Mission Society Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Nagaland: Kohima NO./RMSA/APPT-R/2013/ Kohima, the Nov. After completion of the selection process, the provisional result was published in the month of November, 2015 (date not given), on the top of the result it was given as follows; "Government of Nagaland Nagaland Education Mission Society Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Nagaland: Kohima NO./RMSA/APPT-R/2013/ Kohima, the Nov. 2015 In pursuance of the approval given by the Government vide letter No. DSE-RMSA-Upgradation/2011, dated Kohima the 27th of Nov. 015, the provisional result of the Recruitment of Secondary Teachers for RMSA schools is declared as per the Annexure enclosed. It shall be the prerogative of the Nagaland Education Mission Society to decide on placement and posting of the select teachers. Selected candidates who wish to accept the selection may communicate their acceptance in plain paper to be undersigned on or before the 10th of December 2015. If acceptance letter is not received by the stipulated date it shall be presumed that the candidates do not wish to accept the offer and the same shall be awarded to the candidates in the waiting list. The waiting lists shall remain valid for a period of six months from the date of publication of the results. All appointments shall be subject to verification of Documents/Certificates by the office of the State Mission Authority, RMSA, Nagaland." 15. After the result was declared as stated above, the petitioners were appointed to their respective post and the contents of their appointment orders as per the sample filed by the petitioners are as follows; "Government of Nagaland Nagaland Education Mission Society Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan Nagaland: Kohima No. NLD/RMSA/AP'PT-R/2013 Kohima, the 9th Feb. 2016 Order In pursuance of the letter No. NLD/RMSA-APPT-R/2013, Dated Kohima the 28th of Nov. 2015, the Nagaland Education Mission Society (NEMS) is pleased to engage Mr/Ms. ............ S/o/Do. ............purely on contractual basis with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- (Thirty one thousand three hundred fifteen) only per month with effect from the date of joining his/her duty. This engagement is against the Graduate Teacher post in the RMSA upgraded Govt. High Schools vide post creation No. DSE/RMSA-Upgradation 2011, Dated 27th November 2015. Mr/Ms. .................is posted at GHS................District.............. S/o/Do. ............purely on contractual basis with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- (Thirty one thousand three hundred fifteen) only per month with effect from the date of joining his/her duty. This engagement is against the Graduate Teacher post in the RMSA upgraded Govt. High Schools vide post creation No. DSE/RMSA-Upgradation 2011, Dated 27th November 2015. Mr/Ms. .................is posted at GHS................District.............. He/She shall report to duty and submit his/her joining report to the State Mission Director, RMSA, Kohima and join for duty in the school where posted within 15 days from the date of issue of this order failing which this offer of appointment shall be treated as not accepted and shall automatically stand cancelled without assigning any reason or communication. The service is purely on contractual basis and is liable to be terminated with one month notice as and when deemed fit by the appointing authority. The engagement shall also automatically stand terminated if He/She fails to complete and acquire B.Ed degree from a recognized university within 5(five) years from the issue of this order. Mr/Ms. ..........shall sign a contract bond with the office of the undersigned before joining his/her assignment. Payment of salary shall be subject to release of fund for the purpose by the MHRD, Govt. of India. Deduction towards professional tax shall be made as applicable from time to time." 16. From the contents of the provisional result what one can see is that the same was notified by the Mission Director, RMS A, Nagaland and, the selected candidates were required to communicate their acceptance in plain paper to the Office of the Mission Director on or before 10.12.2015 and, their placement and posting were kept under the prerogative of the Nagaland Education Mission Society. Further, on perusal of the appointment order given above, it is quite clear that the appointment was contractual with the monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- p.m., and the engagements were against the Graduate Teachers' post in the RMSA up-graded Government High Schools. It is also clear that the appointment of the petitioners were subject to signing of a contract/bond by the appointees with the Officers under the State Mission Director before joining their assignment and, payment of salary was subject to release of fund for the purpose by the MHRD, Government of India. It is also clear that the appointment of the petitioners were subject to signing of a contract/bond by the appointees with the Officers under the State Mission Director before joining their assignment and, payment of salary was subject to release of fund for the purpose by the MHRD, Government of India. The sample of the contract/bond signed by the petitioner is reproduced here below; "Bond I Shri/Smti/Kumari...............S/o, D/o.............of.............Village/Town do hereby solemnly agree and accept the post Graduate Teacher in................offer to me under RMSA and to abide by the terms and conditions with integrity. I solemnly declare that; 1. The post offered to me is purely contractual basis. 2. My salary will depend on the release of fund from the GOI. 3. I shall not resort to any kind of agitation awaiting funds from the GOI for salary. 4. My service will be terminated without notice if I am found absent from duty for more than 15 days. 5. I shall not resort to any kind of objection for transfer of post to any place in Nagaland. 6. I shall on my own arrangement, complete and acquire B.Ed. Degree from a recognized University within 5(five) years from the date of appointment. My engagement as a Graduate Teacher may be automatically terminated without any further communication in the event of my failure to fulfill this requirement. Solemnly sworn before me on this day the.......2016". 17. From the contents of the documents stated herein above and the undisputed documents particularly, the notification dated 28.10.2015, No. DSE/RMSA/Upgradation/2011, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Nagaland, the post to which the petitioners were appointed were temporary post under the department of School Education (RMSA) created with a pay band of Rs. 9300-34800/- p.m. with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- but the petitioners were appointed with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. on contract basis under the scheme and on acceptance of the conditions including the monthly salary given in the appointment order, the petitioners were allowed to join their respective post. To make it clear the post to which the petitioners were appointed were created with a Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- but due to a change in the policy of the Government they were appointed with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. with their acceptance. To make it clear the post to which the petitioners were appointed were created with a Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800/- with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- but due to a change in the policy of the Government they were appointed with a monthly salary of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. with their acceptance. The question is whether, the petitioners, after having accepted the monthly pay of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. at the time of their appointment i.e. in the month of February, 2016 can wake up in September, 2018 and demand that they should be paid their salaries at the rate of Rs. 9300-34800/-, since that was the pay decided and notified at the time of creation of their post. This Court is of the view that after having accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment as mentioned in the appointment order and, after having signed a contract/bond to that effect, they are bound by the same and therefore, estopped from claiming otherwise. The submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the pay scale prescribed for Graduate Teachers at the time of joining their post is something anybody would find difficult to accept since it was a Government notification and, since the petitioners were interested parties. Once they have accepted the terms of the appointment the petitioners are bound by the same. They have no right to ask for a change of the same that too after having slept over it for the last more than two years. The next question is whether, the respondents, after having made the offer for appointment to the petitioners to the post of Graduate Teachers with the specific pay of Rs. 31,315/- p.m. and, after the same have been accepted by the petitioners which was followed by the signing of a contract/bond can now reduced the pay to Rs. 25,000/- p.m., on the plea of change of scheme/policy. Certainly not. On the same principle of law as stated above they are also bound by the terms of the agreement, as such, estopped from changing the terms and conditions of the agreement. A contract is complete when an offer is made by a party and it is indicated by the other party that the same is accepted. In this case, their offer for appointment to the post of teachers with a pay of Rs. A contract is complete when an offer is made by a party and it is indicated by the other party that the same is accepted. In this case, their offer for appointment to the post of teachers with a pay of Rs. 31,315/- p.m., was accepted and it was sealed by signing of a written contract Therefore, the respondents cannot change the terms and conditions agreed upon, unilaterally or on then-own. They are bound or estopped by the terms of the contract which was signed on the offer made by them as much as the petitioners are. If such things are allowed there would be a lot of uncertainty which would lead to chaos in the society. Law of contract is based on sound public policy. The principle of law stated above finds support in the two judgments referred to by the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General i.e. in the case of; (i) State of Maharashtra and Others -versus-Anita and Another and, (ii) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another -versus- Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another. 18. As per the scheme portrait by both the learned counsels, the financial burden is borne by the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 90-10; 90 by the Central Government and 10 by the State Government. This scheme has its origin in Article 21A and Article 41 of the Constitution of India which find there expression in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Under the Act and the scheme both the Central Government and the State Government has their own share of responsibility to bring into reality what has been enshrined in the two Articles of the Constitution of India mentioned above. The State Government cannot easily wash its hands off and say that because of financial difficulties it is unable to pay the teachers the pay they deserve, must less, what has already been agreed upon through a contract. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission made on behalf of the State Government that since the scheme has not been challenged the order issued by the State Government which is only a consequential order cannot be challenge effectively. Because, introduction of the new scheme by which the monthly salary of the teachers pay has been reduced to Rs. Because, introduction of the new scheme by which the monthly salary of the teachers pay has been reduced to Rs. 25,000/- p.m. cannot, in the first place, override the agreement or contract signed by the petitioners and the representative of the Society/State Government. The terms of the contract remains intake until it is changed by the parties. Moreover, the contract was not signed by the Central Government who changed the policy but by the representative of the State Government as per the policy formulated by the State Government. 19. Reduction in salary would lead to reducing the standard of teaching. Such a situation cannot be what is envisaged in the provisions of the Articles of the Constitution stated above. Moreover, Nagaland is a Sate which population is largely consisted of tribal communities. As such, education is a sector which must be one of the top priorities of the State. To say the least improvement of the infrastructure in the school sector is the need of the hour if the State has to catch up with the rest of the States in the Country. For that, the State Government should only improve upon what has been already provided for. To do otherwise will only result in further deterioration of the existing standard of Education in the State. In other words, the State Government should avoid doing anything that would lead to further lowering down of the existing standard of education which in fact, the various schemes seeks to ameliorate. It is time the State Government revives the Government Schools in the State and, raise their standard to the level that is required so that the poor also gets quality education and have a chance to live life with dignity. Allot of money is spent by parents who can afford for sending their children to schools elsewhere other than Government Schools. But what about the majority of parents who cannot afford that luxury. That is where inequality take its birth all over the spheres of life. 20. Going by the advertisement, the teachers appointed are highly educated people. They deserve a certain minimum standard of living. For that, a sum of Rs. 31,315/- p.m., in fact, is quite less taking into account the price of essential items. Therefore, to further reduce the same to a sum of Rs. 20. Going by the advertisement, the teachers appointed are highly educated people. They deserve a certain minimum standard of living. For that, a sum of Rs. 31,315/- p.m., in fact, is quite less taking into account the price of essential items. Therefore, to further reduce the same to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- p.m would amount to forcing the petitioners to continue in their work just because they have no choice. That is not what is expected of our socialistic and democratic republic. Therefore, State Government should have come forward with better offer and not like this. 21. Taking into consideration what has been stated above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order by which the monthly salary of the petitioners is sought to be reduced from Rs. 31,315/- to Rs. 25,000/- p.m. is illegal, unreasonable and against the spirit of the constitutional provisions and provisions of laws mentioned above. Therefore, the same has to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.8.2018 & Corrigendum dated 18.08.2018 along with all its follow up orders/notification are quashed and set aside. Writ petition is disposed of.