Rakesh K. Chaudhary vs N.D.M.C. & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3014 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  W.P.(C) No.4817 /1996
%                                                               17th July, 2013

RAKESH K. CHAUDHARY                                         ..... Petitioner
                 Through:                Petitioner in person

                   versus

N.D.M.C. & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents

                            Through:     Mr. Piyush Gaur, Advocate for Mr.
                                         Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for
                                         respondent No. 1/NDMC.
                                         Mr. B.B. Gupta, Mr. Vishnu Kant,
                                         Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Advocates
                                         for respondents 2 & 3.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Rakesh K. Chaudhary, a Teacher

in the respondent No. 2/school, namely, N.D.M.C. Navyug School, Peshwa

Road, New Delhi, seeking the pay-scale of ` 2000-3500 with retrospective

effect from the date of his appointment on 08.11.1989.

2. The essential cause of action in the writ petition is the claim of the

petitioner to pay-scale of ` 2000-3500 instead of the pay-scale of ` 1640-

2900 in which the petitioner was appointed. The claim is on the ground that

Physics Teachers in Navyug School of the respondent No.1/N.D.M.C.

working in the Sarojini Nagar Branch are given pay-scales of ` 2000-3500.

The petitioner, therefore, in sum and substance states that since he is a

Physics Teacher teaching in Navyug School, Peshwa Road, he should get

the same pay-scale which a Physics Teacher in the Navyug School, Sarojini

Nagar is getting.

3. The application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ requires

inter alia that qualification for the posts to which parity is claimed has to be

same or more or less identical, the duties to be performed should also be

same or more or less identical, and, the promotion hierarcy aspect qua the

two channels of the two posts must more or less be similar or identical.

4. This writ petition was argued in detail on 08.04.2013 when the

following order was passed:

" Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has filed an additional affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply to the additional affidavit. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

A prima facie reading of the petition shows that the petitioner has not made enough averments for justifying the claim for equal pay for equal work with respect to the teachers in Sarojini Nagar School with

whom parity is claimed.

List on 15th July, 2013."

5. Respondents have pursuant to the said order filed the affidavit dated

08.04.2013 and the same reads as under :

"ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

I, S.R. Spolia wife of Shri D.M. Spolia, c/o Navyug School Educational Society, Hanuman Road, New Delhi - 110 001, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under :

1. That I am presently working as the Deputy Director of Navyug School Educational Society (NSES, for short). I have derived knowledge about the present case from the records of NSES maintained in the normal course of its business, as also from the officers dealing with the present case. Therefore, I am competent to depose and swear the present affidavit.

2. That the petitioner was appointed as a Physics teacher in Peshwa Road Navyug School in the year 1989 in the pay scale of 1640-2900. The said school had a separate and independent management/Board of Governors at that time.

The working hours in the Peshwa Road school were upto 1:45 P.M. The said school was a secondary school (upto Class X) at that time. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed to teach Class IX at that time since Class X had not even commenced at that time. In fact, Class X started in the year 1990.

3. Navyug School in Sarojini Nagar was a senior secondary school (upto Class XII) in the year 1989. The same teachers were teaching Classes IX, X, XI and XII. It had a separate and independent management/Board of Governors.

There was an additional requirement of three years experience of teaching intermediate / senior secondary classes, for appointment as a teacher in Sarojini Nagar School. The same was not the requirement for the Peshwa Road School in the year 1989. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not have three years experience of teaching intermediate / senior secondary classes when he was so appointed for teaching Class IX in the year 1989.

The working hours of Sarojini Nagar School were always more than the Peshwa Road School.

The said teachers from Class IX to Class XII in Sarojini Nagar School were appointed in the pay scale of 2000-3500.

4. In the year 1991-92, Peshwa Road School became a senior secondary school (upto Class XII), and that Class XI was started in the said School in the year 1991. Therefore, there arose requirement for teachers teaching senior secondary school students. The NSES started the process for appointment of PGT teachers, including Physics teacher/s, for teaching the students of Classes XI and XII. The petitioner had applied for the same as a direct candidate, but was not successful. Therefore, the petitioner was to teach secondary classes (upto Class X).

5. In the year 1999, the petitioner was promoted as PGT (Physics) to teach Classes XI and Class XII. His pay scale on promotion also became 200-3500, the same which was being paid to teachers at the sarojini Nagar School. Since his appointment as PGT (Physics) in 1999, thge petitioner has been teaching senior secondary classes. Presently, the petitioner has been teaching at Lodhi Road Navyug School.

6. The timings of both the Schools, at Sarojini Nagar and Peshwa Road, became upto 2:30 P.M. in the year 2004."

6. Petitioner was given time right from April till today to file response of

this additional affidavit of the respondents but the response has not been

filed. Obviously, the response could not be filed because the factual

averments as stated in the additional affidavit cannot be controverted.

7. The fact of the present case, therefore, shows that the appointment as

a Physics Teacher in Navyug School at the Sarojini Nagar Branch was

different than the appointment of a Physics Teacher at the Peshwa Road

Branch where the petitioner was appointed. The prominent differences are:

(i) The appointment as a Physics Teacher at the Sarojini Nagar Branch

required three years experience and which experience was not required for

the other Navyug Schools operating under the respondent No. 1, including

the Peshwa Road school where the petitioner was appointed.

(ii) The Sarojini Nagar Branch of the Navyug School was a full day

boarding school and, therefore, the teachers had long working hours because

the timing of the school was from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. The timing in the

Peshwa Road school was only upto 1.45 P.M. at the time when the petitioner

was appointed.

(iii) In 1989 when petitiner was appointed, the Peshwa Road School

Branch had only classes upto class IX and teachers were, therefore, expected

to teach only upto class IX whereas the Sarojini Nagar school had classes till

class XII. Teachers, therefore, who were appointed in the Sarojini Nagar

Navyug Branch school had duties to teach classes upto class XII whereas the

Physics Teachers such as the petitioner, who was appointed at Peshwa Road

school had only to teach upto class IX.

(iv) In the year 1991-92 when the Peshwa Road school became a Senior

Secondary School i.e upto class XII recruitment process started for

appointment to the post of PGT (Physics) for teaching students of class XI

and XII. Petitioner did apply for the same but was not successful. Petitioner

therefore, was to teach only upto Secondary classes i.e upto class X.

Petitioner subsequently in the year 1999 got promotion to the post of PGT

(Physics) and accordingly his scale then became ` 2000-3500.

8. It is, therefore, clear that merely because the schools run under the

same Management, and which schools have Physics Teachers the same

cannot automatically mean that Physics Teachers of two different schools

must necessarily have the same grades/pay-scales. In view of the

differences between the Peshwa Road school where the petitioner was

appointed as a Physics Teacher and the Sarojini Nagar Branch of the

Navyug School as stated above, petitioner was consciously being given and

accepting the pay-scale of ` 1640-2900, hence in view of the facts of the

present case, petitioner cannot allege discrimination or claim applicability of

the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition which

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 17, 2013 godara