9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for salary in a specific pay scale, legality of pay scale for untrained teachers, equal pay for equal work doctrine, interpretation of conflicting statutory provisions. Analysis: The respondent, a teacher appointed in 1972, claimed salary in a pay scale of &8377; 160-360/- per month, which was refused by the appellant State. The respondent approached the High Court of Rajasthan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief, which was granted through the impugned judgment. The respondent was initially appointed at a fixed rate of &8377; 130/- per month due to being untrained, as opposed to the &8377; 160-360/- scale allowed for trained teachers. The matter is governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules 1969 and Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The High Court struck down the provision fixing the salary at a lower rate for untrained teachers, citing illegal discrimination. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the distinction in pay scales based on educational qualifications is valid. The Supreme Court referenced previous cases to support the notion that higher qualifications justify a higher pay scale, maintaining that the additional qualification of being trained enhances a teacher's ability to perform duties better. Regarding the interpretation of conflicting statutory provisions, the respondent argued that Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Services Rules 1951, stating that an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course, should prevail over the fixed rate of pay for untrained teachers. However, the Court held that the special provision in the 1969 Rules for untrained teachers overrides the general provision of Rule 29, following the principle that specific provisions prevail over general ones. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the respondent's arguments and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed in the High Court. The judgment under appeal was not sustained, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
