The Supreme Court allowed certain part‑time teachers in the State of West Bengal to make a fresh representation before the School Education Department Secretary for pay parity with full‑time teachers teaching in non‑government aided higher secondary schools. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation within a specified period, outlining their grievances, claims, and entitlements in line with the order passed by the High Court, and directed that the competent authority afford them an opportunity of hearing in representative capacity. The court further ordered that the corresponding records pertaining to the engagement of the petitioners be summoned from the respective schools prior to proceeding with the hearing and that the parties be permitted to inspect the same. It directed that a detailed and reasoned order be passed after considering the representations and submissions within four months, and provided that if any adverse order is passed, the petitioners would be free to avail themselves of any legal remedy available.
To recap the background, a State Government order dated 28 July 2010 had extended the benefit of ten days casual leave and ten days medical leave to contractual part‑time teachers, subject to the condition that they take the same number of classes per week as regular and full‑time teachers. Aggrieved by the Department’s failure to treat some part‑time teachers as equal to regular teachers, writ petitions were filed before the High Court for extending equal pay for equal work to part‑time teachers of Khandra High School in District Burdwan. The writ petition was initially disposed of by a Single Bench, which directed the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, to take a decision in the matter by issuing a reasoned order in accordance with law by a set deadline. The Secretary, in terms of this direction, decided against the petitioner, observing that the petitioners’ service could not be regularized as permanent teachers because they were appointed on a purely contractual part‑time basis for the higher secondary section of the schools, and the State Government had not issued any order to regularize part‑time teachers against permanent vacancies. It was further observed that extension of leave benefits did not imply that part‑time teachers would be treated as permanent teachers; rather, these benefits were intended solely to provide leave to part‑time contractual teachers willing to take classes regularly.
The order of the Secretary was challenged before a Single Judge Bench, which allowed the writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work, holding that the writ petitioners could not be treated as a separate and distinct class or said to be claiming benefits for a scale of duties beyond their post and profile. The Single Judge directed the authorities to take steps for payment of salaries and other benefits to the petitioners equal to those of regular pay and at par with full‑time permanent teachers of the concerned school, and directed such payment to be made effective from 27 April 2007, which was the date of the order restraining further appointment of new part‑time teachers on contract basis in non‑government higher secondary schools with effect from 1 April 2007. Subsequently, in September 2020, on appeal by the State, a Division Bench of the High Court modified the Single Judge’s order and directed that payment be made with effect from 28 July 2010 to 24 December 2013, when the Government order of 28 July stood withdrawn, with arrears to be cleared within a stipulated period. For the periods from April 2007 to December 2009 and after 24 December 2013, the High Court directed the Secretary to decide representations by the writ petitioners within a time‑bound manner, if justified on the basis of discharge of similar duties, and to pass a reasoned order, and it suggested that the Government consider sympathetically extending more benefits to the part‑time teachers.
The State approached the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s order. In September 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the Division Bench’s order. Subsequently, in July 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, directing compliance with the Division Bench judgment within three months and extending relief to all similarly placed private respondents and intervenors. Thereafter, the present contempt petition was filed, alleging that although the Government had paid the arrears for the period from 28 July 2010 to 24 December 2013, claims for the period from 24 July 2007 to 27 July 2010 and after 25 December 2013 remained unaddressed. The petition averred that according to the Supreme Court’s directions, the Respondent/Alleged Contemnor was required to evaluate whether part‑time teachers performed duties similar to full‑time teachers during those undisputed periods and determine their eligibility for arrears accordingly. However, on 15 January 2025, the Respondent under the direction of the alleged contemnor rejected the part‑time teachers’ equal pay claims for the specified periods. It was contended that the rejection order was predicated on organizational and managerial differences between part‑time and full‑time teachers, arguments which had been rejected by the Courts, and that the respondents were obliged to evaluate whether the part‑time teachers’ responsibilities matched those of full‑time teachers, but failed to do so, thereby perpetuating unfair treatment. The petitioners emphasized that the rejection order produced the consequence that despite succeeding before three Courts, part‑time teachers would be entitled only to arrears for the three years of service between 2010 and 2013 and not to parity with full‑time teachers for other periods. They asserted that the rejection order was in contempt of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 order, which recognized the right of part‑time teachers to claim equal pay as given to full‑time teachers.
The Supreme Court’s order permitting a fresh representation before the competent authority directs a reasoned order on the claims within four months, reinstating the procedural avenue for part‑time teachers to present their grievances and entitlements based on the hierarchy of judicial orders preceding the Supreme Court’s intervention.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.