TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Sainik School Society: State Status, Employee Benefits and Loan Fund Directive.</h1> <h3>ALL INDIA SAINIK SCHOOLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Versus DEFENCE MINISTER CUM CHAIRMAN BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHOOLS SOCIETY, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS</h3> The Court held that the Sainik School Society is 'State' under Article 12, subject to Article 14 and Directive Principles of State Policy. While employees ... - Issues Involved:1. Implementation of Fourth Pay Commission recommendations.2. Differential wages from Third Pay Commission.3. Benefits parity with Kendriya Vidyalayas.4. Enhancement of retirement age.Summary:Issue 1: Implementation of Fourth Pay Commission RecommendationsThe petitioner, All India Sainik Schools Employees Association, sought a writ of mandamus to implement the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations in Sainik Schools and extend benefits given to Kendriya Vidyalayas employees. The respondents argued that the Sainik School Society is not an instrumentality of the State and thus not bound by these recommendations. The Court held that the Sainik School Society is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, making it subject to Article 14 and the Directive Principles of State Policy.Issue 2: Differential Wages from Third Pay CommissionThe petitioner requested differential wages for the period between 1973 and 1978 due to delayed implementation of the Third Pay Commission's recommendations. The Court did not find merit in the claim for discrimination based on Article 14, as the employees of the Sainik School Society are a distinct class and cannot be equated with Central Government employees or Kendriya Vidyalayas staff.Issue 3: Benefits Parity with Kendriya VidyalayasThe petitioner sought various benefits including medical reimbursement, leave travel concession, house rent allowance, and pay scales at par with Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Court directed that certain benefits such as pension and gratuity schemes, medical allowance, and leave travel concession be made effective from 1st April 1988. However, it did not interfere with the claim for house rent allowance and other benefits, except for house construction loans and loans for purchasing scooters and cars, which were deemed reasonable and directed to be provided.Issue 4: Enhancement of Retirement AgeThe petitioner sought to enhance the retirement age to 60 years for all categories of employees, similar to Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Court found no unreasonableness in the existing retirement age policy, which allows teachers to continue until 60 years subject to physical fitness and satisfactory performance, and non-academic staff to retire at 58 years.Conclusion:The Court concluded that while the Sainik School Society is 'State' under Article 12, the employees form a distinct class and cannot claim parity with Central Government or Kendriya Vidyalayas employees. The Court granted some benefits effective from 1st April 1988 and directed the creation of a fund for house and vehicle loans, with all benefits to be implemented by 31st March 1989. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
