ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J. - (1.) The writ petitioners were working as teachers in the school set up by Dandakaranya Development Authority. In the year 1985-86 the government decided to hand over those schools to the state administration and the surplus employees working therein were transferred to the personnel department of the Central Government and thereafter redeployed in various departments of the State Government. During this period the Central Government set up a commission for examining the terms and conditions of teachers working throughout the country and for setting up uniform scale of pay for them. Professor D. P. Chattopadhyay commission ultimately in April, 1986 submitted their final report, wherein certain financial benefits were given to the teachers. The disputes arose, as to whether the teachers working under Dandakaranya Development Authority would be entitled to avail the benefits of the recommendation of the commission. The matter went up to the Apex Court level. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Bijoy Lal Ghosh & Ors. reported in JT 98 Vol. II SC Page 318, observed that since the teachers working under the authority were declared surplus and were transferred firstly to the personnel department to the Central Government and thereafter redeployed in various departments of the Government they would be entitled to the benefit as according to the Apex Court as on the effective date being January 1, 1986 they were teachers and were entitled to the said benefit.
(2.) If we look to paragraph 2 of the said decision, it would appear that the teachers of subject group were declared surplus and they were taken on roll of Central Surplus Staff Cell under the personnel department vide order dated April 28, 1986 and they were transferred to the personnel department with effect from April 1, 1986 and consequently, they were redeployed in various departments with effect from September 22, 1986. The concerned writ petitioners in that case thereafter joined their respective departments on or after September 22, 1986. In that backdrop, the Apex Court observed that as on January 1, 1986 those writ petitioners should have been considered as teachers and the benefits under the commission report should be extended to them. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment being relevant herein for the purpose is quoted below: "28. After giving our due consideration both to the facts and the law, which we have referred above, it is not in dispute that the respondents were teachers working, with the Central Government between 1st January, 1986 and 1st April, 1986. The Government absorbed them in its various departments at the same pay scale which they were drawing then. The Central Government has accepted the National Commission (Chattopadhyay Committee) report-and gave benefit to all its teachers working in the Union Territory and some of its departments and that all the States in India have also accepted the same. The documents on record also reveals, apart from the teachers working in the Union Territory, Central Government approved other teachers working in some other departments. The pith and substance and spirit of the reply at the Parliament indicates at least Central. Government's total acceptance for all its teachers to whom the said report was applicable. The appellant,namely,Union of India, has not brought_on record anything to the contrary to show the exclusion of respondents room giving the said benefit on the relevant date, as were given to all the teachers, who were placed in the same position as the respondents. The only argument advanced was, not on the basis of any record but as submission that since the institutions under DDP were handed over to the States of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January, 1986 and that not being in existence, respondents baring been taken as surplus and were in due time absorbed in the various departments, the benefit of the increase in pay scale as recommended by the National Commission was not given to them. Apart from the fact that there is nothing on the record to show even this reasoning for declining the said claim, we find even otherwise, this submission has no merits. The respondents are not claiming all or other benefits which were given and to be received in future to the teachers but confining their claim to the period when, admittedly, they were teachers and all the teachers irrespective of the fact that they were taken by the State Government or with the Central Government were given that benefit. If that be so, there could be no justifiable reason to exclude that benefit to the respondents."
(3.) On a plain reading of the paragraph quoted (supra) it would appear that the Apex court observed that the report would apply to the teachers to whom the said report was applicable. The Apex Court also observed that the concerned writ petitioners were teachers on the relevant date (01.01.1986) irrespective of the fact that they were taken by the State Government or the Central Government subsequently and it Would not be justified to exclude them from the benefits available under the report of the commission.;