K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.) In 1983, the petitioners along with a large number of like persons were appointed as primary school teachers in rural schools under the panchayat samities. In the first instance, the appointment was for a fixed term and thereafter it was renewed from time to time. By way of salary, they were paid only a consolidated sum of Rs. 400/- in every month. That was also not paid during the summer vacation to schools. Some of the teachers approached the High Court in a batch of writ petitions claiming and another payment of salary during summer vacation. Those petitions were disposed of by the High Court. [See:Chanda Tamboli v. The Panchayat Samiti Mandal, equal pay for equal work and also continuity in service with (Civil Writ Petition No. 2795 of 1987)1. There the High Court examined every aspect of the matter and gave certain reliefs like salary and .dearness allowance but not regularisation, of services. The operative portion of the judgment of the High Court is as under:"In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and we direct that all the petitioners whose services have been terminated shall be entitled to one month's salary in the minimum pay scale admissible to the cadre with dearness allowance or Additional Dearness Allowance admissible in accordance with law but will not be entitled to grade increment and they will be re-employed in the next academic session to continue till the regular selections take place (of course subject to availability of vacancies). Amongst these class of persons if trained teachers are available then priority shall be given to the trained teachers. These teachers who are already serving shall be paid the minimum of pay scale admissible to the particular cadre concerned with Dearness Allowance or Additional Dearness Allowance admissible according to law. They will continue till regular selections take place. They will not be entitled to any grade increments. However, they will be entitled to salary for the vacation period as well. The State Government is also directed to get the untrained teachers trained in view of the communication referred to above so that these lowly paid teachers may improve their prospects for the employment in phased programme. No orders as to costs."
(2.) It may be stated that the petitioners also filed similar writ petitions and they have been disposed of in terms of the above order.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the petitioners have filed these Special Leave Petitions. The decision 'in Chanda Tamboli case is also challenged in SLP No. 11899/88. The petitioner in W.P. No. 898/ 88 has not approached the High Court. He has moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution stating that it would be futile to approach the High Court in view of the decision in Chanda Tamboli case. He may be right in his approach.;