(Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
State of Bihar and Others __________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee Munger and Others ______________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20/2018, decided on January 29, 2018
(With Interim Relief and IA No. 289/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T. and IA No. 10802/2018-impleading party)
With SLP(C) No. 254/2018 (XVI) (IA No. 2085/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 169/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1711/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 251/2018 (XVI) SLP(C) No. 708/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 4331/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 238/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1945/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 162/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1550/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 242/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1974/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 164/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1594/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.) SLP(C) No. 572/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 3733/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T. and IA No. 5529/2018-Intervention/Impleadment) SLP(C) No. 240/2018 (XVI) (With Interim Relief and IA No. 1960/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The question raised in this batch of petitions is whether there must be parity in the teachers recruited by the local bodies and teachers recruited by the State Government.
2. According to the stand of the State Government, the teachers recruited by the State Government prior to 2006 are a dieing cadre. There are about 50,000 teachers in the category of teachers recruited by the State Government as against approximately 3,50,000 teachers in the category of the teachers recruited by the local bodies. It is submitted that there is thus, only one permanenet category i.e. those recruited by local bodies. The salary paid to the second category is roughly Rs. 20,000/- as against the salary of Rs. 56,000/- on an average paid to the teachers recruited by the State Government as of now.
3. According to Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State Government, if the High Court judgment is to be implemented approximately a sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand Crores may have to be paid as arrears and current liability will be Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Crores per year.
4. These figures are disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. According to them, as per the affidavit filed before the High Court, the liability is less than Rupees Ten Thousand Crores per year and 60% of the amount is paid by the Central Government.
5. Even though, on principle, there has to be parity in the salary of the teachers, whether recruited by the State Government or by the local bodies. If any filters, consistent with the law, are required to be employed for giving the parity, the same can be done. However, question is of applicability of such principle where category of teachers in first category is declared a dieing cadre. Secondly, we need to consider whether it is practical to fasten the State Government with the liability for the arrears. The stand of the State is that in future there will be only one category i.e. teachers recruited by the local bodies. Even in such situation, there has to be rational in the pay package of the teachers recruited by the local bodies. In doing so, the amount paid by the Central Government ought to be utilised by the State Government and the State Government may consider the view-point of the respondents and come out with a proposal which may be reasonable. It may constitute an Expert Committee of at least 3 officers in the rank of the Chief Secretary. The said Committee will also be free to interact and consider the view-point of the concerned teachers as well as any other stakeholders, in case any suggestion is received by it. Such suggestion may be addressed/given to the Chief Secretary which in turn can be considered by the Expert Committee.
6. We accordingly adjourn the matter to 15th March, 2018 for further consideration.
7. We consider it necessary to request Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court to place the view-point of the Central Government before the Court.
8. Status quo, as on today, be maintained in the meantime.
———
