M.Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 13.7.1992 and 10.9.1992. Annexures 8 and 9 to the writ petition and for a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 not to deduct the petitioner's salary by refixing the same in accordance with the above orders.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel. The petitioners are teachers and staff of Gyanodaya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur, Barawa, P.O. Dharampur, district Deoria. The school has got permanent recognition as a Junior High School from 27.8.1977. The school was brought under the Payment of Salary Act from March, 1991 vide notification dated 28.12.1991, true copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition. The Director of Education vide his letter dated 13.1.1992 gave guidelines for fixation of salary, and Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid letter indicated that the service books of the teachers be prepared and verified and the fixation of pay be done accordingly. True copy of the said letter is Annexure-4. In pursuance of the G.O. dated 28.12.1991, the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the Management dated 1.2.1992, vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Management gave all the necessary records to the respondent No. 2, who vide his letter dated 3.6.1992 approved the date of appointment, date of approval and the salary being paid to the teachers and staff. True copy of the letter dated 3.6.1992 is Annexure-6. It is alleged in Paragraph 6 of the petition that In accordance with the directions of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and as per approval of the payment chart, the salary bill of the teachers and staff for the month of March, 1991 to September, 1991 was submitted before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 10.6.1992 and it was approved by the Lekhadhikari and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 16.6.1992 and accordingly the salary was paid to the teachers and staff. A comparative chart of the salary is Annexure-7. It is alleged in Paragraph 8 of the petition that subsequently the Director of Education vide his letter dated 13.7.1992 has written to all the Basic Shiksha Adhikaris and Lekhadhikaris to refix the salary of the teachers and staff from the date of bringing the institution under the Payment of Salary Act on minimum basis. The letter also directed that the excess payment made may be adjusted from the salary of subsequent months. True copy of the letter dated 13.7.1992 is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the said letter, the directions have been issued for refixation of the salary and adjustment of the excess salary paid vide letter of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 10.9.1992. True copy of the said letter is Annexure-9 to the petition. In Paragraph 13 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioners have put in 10 to 17 years of service prior to 1.3.1991 and this was ignored. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed and I have perused the same. In my opinion, the letter of the Director of Education dated 13.7.1992 as well as the consequential letter of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 10.9.1992 are wholly arbitrary and deserve to be set aside. It is evident from the letter of Director of Education dated 13.7.1992 that all the teachers and staff of the institution will be placed on the minimum of the pay scale with effect from the date on which the institution has been brought within the purview of the Payment of Salary Act, Le., from March, 1991. If this is permitted, it will mean that a teacher who has been working from say 1970 will be paid the same salary as a teacher who was appointed in say 1990 since both will be placed on the minimum of the pay scale. Thus, the senior teachers will be placed at par with the junior-most teacher regarding salary. This is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It Is well-settled that discrimination can be done both by treating equals unequally or by treating unequals equally. In the present case, unequals have been treated as equals, because senior teachers are being treated at par as junior teachers with regard to payment of salary, and this is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, I set aside the impugned orders dated 13.7.1992 and 10.9.1992 and direct that the petitioners will be paid salary on the basis of the fixation of pay made earlier to the impugned orders and they will be given full benefit of seniority regarding salary also.;