RMSA 2016 batch teachers call for equal treatment

Nagaland RMSA 2016 batch teachers have demanded equal treatment and scale pay, alleging that the state government continues to segregate teachers under the same scheme into different batches with different entitlements based solely on the year of appointment.
In a statement, the Nagaland RMSA Teachers Association said the present policy does not only sound of an unintentional error in policy making but a deliberate attempt to take advantage of a grand scheme which sets a very dangerous precedent.
It said that while earlier batches of SSA and RMSA teachers were regularised in line with the goal of the scheme, the later batches including RMSA 2016 were being denied equal entitlements on the pretext that their pay was subject to RMSA funding, which, it maintained, “is not at all true.”
The association explained that both SSA and RMSA (now merged into Samagra Shiksha) were centrally sponsored schemes, where funds provided by the Ministry of Education were only meant as financial support for salary and not the actual salary.
It said Nagaland initially received 90% central support, which was to gradually decrease until the state fully took responsibility for teachers’ salaries.
Tracing the background, the association recalled that RMSA was introduced to universalise secondary education, fill the gap left by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan which focused only on elementary education, and ensure equitable access for rural and marginalised sections. With the upgradation of 112 government middle schools to high schools in 2013, the RMSA 2016 batch of teachers were recruited through open advertisements and a lengthy selection process involving written tests and interviews.
However, upon appointment, they were dismayed to find their salaries fixed at Rs. 31,315 per month, an amount which they said continues even after nearly 10 years, in violation of MHRD guidelines that clearly state: “The States/UTs should maintain unified teaching cadres and separate RMSA cadre should be avoided since teachers are part of the teaching cadres of the state and UTs.”
The association lamented that despite clear guidelines, teachers from the same scheme were accorded different service rules and benefits based solely on the year of recruitment.
“Today we ask, on what grounds have some batches been regularised and on what grounds others have been relegated to fixed pay?” they questioned.
They also pointed out that the bond signed during appointment had already been invalidated by court, but whenever they demanded fair treatment, the government continued to cite service conditions. The association reminded that it was the state’s obligation to advance the education system of schools with or without central assistance, since they provide crucial foundational knowledge for higher studies. Stating that the government should have capitalised on the scheme’s financial support to strengthen education, the association asserted that the government’s practice of recruiting teachers “at a discounted rate under the pretext of a scheme” must be stopped once and for all. Such a policy, it said, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity and sets a dangerous precedent where teachers are exploited to perform the same duties with minimal pay.
It reiterated that no matter what other measures are introduced at the expense of of a teacher’s emotional, social and mental well-being, true progress in the education system can never be achieved.