The Tripura High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice MR. Akil Kuresh remarked that Staff of a Grant-In-Aid school is certainly not in Government employment. (Aparna Chowdhury v. The State of Tripura ) (Suparna Deb Roy v. The State of Tripura, and another)
Facts of the case
The petitioners applied in response to the Government advertisement for the post of Postgraduate teacher after obtaining no objection from her employer and petitioners placed in fixed salary regime and they would have to wait for 5 years before they were brought over to regular scales. The petitioner was selected and offered an appointment to the post of Postgraduate teacher in English in a Government school on a fixed monthly payment of Rs.22,785 under office memorandum.
Before joining the Postgraduate teacher both petitioners were employed in Govt Aided School on a regular pay. The petitioner accepted such appointment and after rendering her resignation which was accepted by the employer.
Her grievance is that in her new assignment as a Government teacher her pay has been downgraded. She would point out that as a teacher in a grant-in-aid school. Therefore, she filed this petition praying that her past service in grant-in-aid school is counted for her pay fixation as a Government teacher.
Contention of the Parties
Learned advocates for the petitioners strenuously urged that both the petitioners were placed in proper pay scales prescribed by the Government for teachers. They were teachers in grant-in-aid schools where the grant of salary to the teaching staff would come from the Government funds. Such teachers are paid at the same rate as Government teachers. Their service conditions are governed by grant-in-aid code of the State of Tripura which envisages proper selection and appointment of teachers as well as their tenure protection. Their engagements were thus akin to Government service. They had applied for selection with prior no objection from their employers and joined the duties after tendering “technical” resignations. The counsel relied on F.R. 22 and Rule 26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules in support of their contentions.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar Sharma opposed the petitions contending that the petitioners had applied in response to the advertisement which clearly specified that the appointee would be expected to discharge duties for 5 years on fixed salary basis before he/she would be brought over to regular scale. The petitioners accepted appointments with this clear stipulation in mind. Further they were working in private schools. Merely because the schools received grant-in-aid from the Government would not mean that the petitioners were Government servants. F.R. 22, Rule 26(2) of the CCS(Pension) Rules and the instructions relied upon by the petitioners would apply only in case a Government servant from one department tenders technical resignation and joins another Government department which is not the situation in the present case.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court observed, “The basic philosophy behind the formulation of the grant-in-aid scheme is that though the Government has a duty to provide education in primary and secondary level, it may not be possible to cover the entire eligible population for admitting students in Government schools. Instead of setting up such Government schools, the Government would aid private schools and undertake the responsibility of salary and other administrative expenditure for running such a school. In turn, the school would have to adhere to certain Government policies and guidelines. The teaching and nonteaching staff would have tenure protection against arbitrary terminations. Nevertheless, an employee of a grant-in-aid school is not in Government employees. “
The crux of the issue is that the staff of a grant-in-aid school is certainly not in Government employment. A teacher of a grant-in-aid school may have his pay protection as long as he continues in such employment and the school continues to receive grant-in-aid. The teacher may have tenure protection in terms of Rule 9 of Grant-in-aid Rules; however, he is not a Government servant.
The request of the petitioners for protection of past service, therefore, must be viewed on this basis. Clause (a) of F.R. 22(I) would cover a case where a Government servant holding a post, other than a tenure post in substantive temporary officiating capacity is promoted or appointed in a substantive temporary officiating capacity. In such a situation, he would have certain pay protection. Clearly this clause applies to a Government servant when he is promoted or appointed on another Government post.
While dismissing the petition the court observed, “the objection of the Government that the petitioners accepted their appointments with full knowledge and, therefore, they are estopped from raising their grievances is possible of the summary disposal. Neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement nor the offer of appointment Page 12 of 13 can override the service rules, regulations and statutory provisions.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
