Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 849 (GAU)

Tania Hakom v. State Of A. P.

2024-06-12

KARDAK ETE

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.02.2017, issued by the Secretary (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to the extent of denying him the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal. 3. The petitioner was appointed by regularization as Junior Teacher (Hindi), now redesignated as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the year 2008 and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Polo Colony, Itanagar. While serving in the said post, the petitioner along with another person, namely, Sri Taya Yabu were appointed as in-charge Headmaster, without any extra remuneration, till the posting of regular Headmaster. 4. It is contended that the petitioner on being appointed as the in-charge Headmaster in the said school, has served from 04.09.2017 to 01.04.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment of scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal on the ground that the juniors who were allowed to officiate as the Headmaster, have been allowed to draw the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal. 5. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the depriving the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal to the petitioner, though allowed to some others who were allowed to officiate as Headmaster is totally arbitrary and discriminatory, which violates the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel, submits that since the petitioner was discharging the duties of Headmaster with utmost diligence and have carried out the same responsibilities, there is no reason as to why the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work should not be invoked. He submits that the persons who are equally situated are being granted the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, having the same nature of duties and responsibilities. The appointment of the petitioner as in-charge Headmaster cannot be distinguished as the nature of duties and responsibilities are same with those officiating Headmasters. 7. Mr. He submits that the persons who are equally situated are being granted the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, having the same nature of duties and responsibilities. The appointment of the petitioner as in-charge Headmaster cannot be distinguished as the nature of duties and responsibilities are same with those officiating Headmasters. 7. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel, fervently urged that since persons, similarly situated have been provided the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, the petitioner is entitled to be granted the same benefit, else it would be contrary to the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work and therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to pay the scale of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, for the period 04.09.2017 to 01.04.2019. 8. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3, per-contr, submits that the appointment of the petitioner as in-charge Headmaster was purely temporary. The appointment order clearly stipulates that there would not be any extra remuneration and it was only till the posting of regular Headmaster. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal. He further submits that though the petitioner is claiming for similar benefit granted to some other officiating Headmaster but those persons are not impleaded as party respondents. However, he submits, the persons claimed to be junior and similarly situated who alleged to have been paid the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, have been reverted back now, as their promotions were officiating and found to be out of turn, contrary to the Office Memorandum of the State. Therefore, Mr. Tagum, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, as he was given the charge of Headmaster till the posting of the regular Headmaster. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The fundamental grievance of the petitioner is for grant of scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal on the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. 11. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as the in-charge Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Polo Colony at Itanagar, with certain conditions. The appointment of the in-charge Headmaster was without any extra remuneration and till the posting of the regular Headmaster. 11. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as the in-charge Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School, Polo Colony at Itanagar, with certain conditions. The appointment of the in-charge Headmaster was without any extra remuneration and till the posting of the regular Headmaster. The petitioner has accepted such appointment and served the school as in-charge Headmaster for two years. After accepting the appointment as in-charge Headmaster with the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition claiming scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, on the ground that similarly situated teachers who have been appointed on officiating basis illegally, had been granted the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal. The petitioner has fundamentally sought for invoking the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. 12. On consideration of the matter, in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, as there is no concept of negative equality under the law and Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. It is settled law that equality, cannot be claimed in illegality. 13. As the claim of equality and parity to those persons who have been granted benefit not in accordance with the law, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. If such a claim is allowed, it would amounts to perpetuate illegality, as illegality cannot be perpetrated on the ground of equality. In any case, the persons who alleged to have been granted the promotion on officiating basis and the scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, have been reverted back as it was found to be not in accordance with law. Thus the claim of parity of the petitioner to those illegally appointed and granted scale of pay of Headmaster/Vice-Principal, cannot be accepted and as such question of invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work does not arise. 14. In the case of Panchi Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 589 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it has a positive concept. Equality, it is trite, cannot be claimed in illegality. 15. In view of the discussions made here-in-above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. I find no merit in this Writ Petition. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Equality, it is trite, cannot be claimed in illegality. 15. In view of the discussions made here-in-above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. I find no merit in this Writ Petition. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.