- (1.) This application is under Article 32 of the Constitution. The All India Sainik Schools Employees Association through its President is the petitioner. The Sainik School Society (hereinafter refered. to as "the Society") is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860. The main object of the Society, as available from clause 3(a) of the Memorandum of Association, is :- "to establish Sainik Schools in various parts of India, providing special school education of a high standard with the aim of preparing boys academically and physically for entry into National Defence Academy and other walks of life." With a view to implementing this object 18 schools located in different States of the country have been established. The petitioner has impleaded the Chairman and Members of the Board of Governors of the Society as respondents I to 6; Ministers of Education of the seventeen States as respondents 7 to 23 and principals of the 18 schools as respondents 24 to 41. The petitioner has asked for a writ of mandamus to the Union of India as also respondent No. 1 : (1) to implement the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission in the Sainik Schools and to extend all the benefits already given to employees of the Kendriya Vidyalayas by way of implementing the recommendations of the Chattopadhya Commission; (2) to give to the employees of the Sainik Schools the differential wages in terms of the Third Pay Commission between 1973 (when it applied to Government institutions) and 1978 (when the benefits were extended to the employees of the Sainik Schools); (3) to direct that the employees of the Sainik Schools shall have the benefits of leave travel concession, house rent, pension, group insurance, contributory provident fund, pensionary benefits and gratuity in the same pattern as obtaining in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan or given to Defence Services Officers working in the Sainik Schools, and (4) enhance the age of superannuation to 60 years as in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya employees.
(2.) When notice was issued to the respondents, respondent No. 1 alone entered appearance and made a return. Apart from raising certain technical pleas against the maintainability of the petition, it has pleaded that the Society was not as instrumentality of the State. According to the respondent No. 1, the entire capital expenditure on land, buildings, furniture and educational equipment and the major portion of the recurring expenditure is borne by the concerned State Government/Union Territory Administration of the places where the school is located. Maintenance, additions and replacements are also the obligation of the respective State Governments. The Principal, the Head-Master, the Registrar and an Army Physical Training Corps/National Cadet Corp. Instructor posted in every school are paid out of the Defence Budget. All other expenses are met out of the fees payable by the parents or taken out of the scholarships paid by the State/Central Governments to the students. The quantum of the fees/scholarships is fixed by the Board of Governors from time to time taking into consideration the financial position.
(3.) The counter affidavit accepted the petitioner's plea that several Committees had been established for bringing about improvement in the functioning of the Sainik Schools and improvement of conditions of service such as the High Power Committee, Sahare Committee, Palaram Committee and the Academic Study Group. Though in essence the Kendriya Vidyalayas and the other establishments of the Central Government differ from the Sainik Schools, many of the benefits admissible to Government servants and vidyalaya teachers have already been extended to employees of the Sainik Schools. The counter affidavit traversed the petitioner's averment that the guideline of Kendriya Vidyalayas has to be adopted and the benefits admissible to the employees of such Vidyalayas should be extended to the employees of Sainik Schools. According to the respondent, the Sainik Schools are of a different pattern, the historical background of their creation, the purpose for which they are founded and the other benefits which are admissible to the employees should also be borne in mind when considering the claim raised by the petitioner. According to the respondents the claim based on the concept of equal pay for equal work contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution is misconceived inasmuch as unless the nature and the status of the service is the same there can be no equality.;