Supreme Court resolves 22-year-old pay disparity dispute, grants relief to retired Education Department officials
Justices Surya Kant & KV Viswanathan [15-07-2024]

Read Order: State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors [SC- Civil Appeal No. 2024/2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 16, 2024: The Supreme Court has finally put to rest a 22-year-old dispute regarding pay disparities between certain officials in the Education Department of Uttar Pradesh, allowing the appeal filed by the State in part and granting relief to the retired Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA).

The dispute originated in 2001 when the pay scales of state government teachers, including Headmasters of Junior High Schools, were revised on par with central government teachers. However, no corresponding revision was made to the pay scales of SDI/ABSA and DBSA, resulting in their pay becoming lesser than Headmasters, who they earlier used to supervise. This led to SDI/ABSA and DBSA approaching the Allahabad High Court in 2002, which ruled in their favour and directed grant of higher pay scales to them. The State challenged this in the Supreme Court.

During pendency of the appeal, the State proposed a new policy in 2010 to address the anomaly by merging the cadres of SDI/ABSA and DBSA and granting a higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to the merged post of Block Education Officer, notionally from 2006 and with actual benefits from 2008. The Supreme Court in its 2010 order found this proposal satisfactory and dismissed the State's appeal, with a direction to the State to implement it. Accordingly, the State issued an order in 2011 implementing the new pay scales. However, this was again challenged by some retired officials before the High Court seeking higher pay from an earlier date. The High Court in 2018 ruled in their favour, but the State failed to file an appeal in time, leading to contempt action. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court again.

The apex court has now held that the High Court erred in its 2018 order by assuming that its previous decision dated 06.05.2002 was intact and enforceable, independent of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal arising therefrom. On the same analogy, the High Court’s holding that its previous decision dated 06.05.2002 would operate as res-judicata, also cannot sustain being erroneous in law, the top court held. The Supreme Court further said that the final and binding order between the parties is the one dated 08.12.2010, passed by the top court.