ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the State Haryanaare directed against the impugned judgmentof the High Court of Punjab &haryana. The dispute centers round thequestion whether the teachers of privatelymanaged recognised aided schools wouldbe entitled to the benefits which the Governmenthad conferred by issuing circularat different point of time. In this batch ofcases we are concerned with for such circular, i.e. circular dat ed 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, 7.1.1994 and 8.2.1994. Out ofthese four circular, the first two circularappears to have been issued as an incentiveto the employees of the Governmentof Haryana State and the third circular isan interim relief granted to them while thematter of revision of pay was under consideration before the Pay Commission.The fourth circular dated 8.2.1994 is ahigher scale of pay to the teachers of theGovernment schools in Haryana on certaincontingencies. When the teachers ofthe privately managed schools filed thewrit petition before the High Court, thestate did not file any counter affidavit. Incourse of arguments before the High Courtthe learned counsel appearing for theState of Haryana conceded that the circular dated 8.2.1994, which had been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, is a matterrelating to the scale of pay of the teachers. The High Courtby the impugned judgment, relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of HaryanaState Adhyapak Sangh and Ors. v. Stateof Haryana and Ors. .State of Haryana and Ors. v. RajpalSharma and Ors. aswell as Haryana State Adhyapak Sanghand Ors. v. State of Haryana [1990 (Supp.)SCC 306], came to the conclusion that theteachers of the privately managed schoolswould be entitled to all the benefit emanatingfrom the aforesaid four circularwhich were undoubtedly meant only for thegovernment servants in the State of Haryana.
3. Assailing, the aforesaid judgment inthese appeals, Mr. Mahendra Anand,learned senior counsel appearing for theState of Haryana, vehemently contendsthat the decisions of this Court on whichthe High Court has relied upon, clearly envisage that there should be a parity in thescale of pay and the dearness allowance,but other incentives, which are granted tothe government servants or teachers ofGovernment schools, cannot be claimed asa matter of right in the form of parity byapplying the principle of “equal pay forequal work”. According to Mr. Anand, allthe aforesaid four circular were in the natureof incentives to the government servantsto ameliorate the grievances of stagnation at a particular stage and, therefore,the High Court was in error in granting therelief sought for in the writ petition. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents, on the other hand,contended that in view of the pronouncement of the decisions of this Court in thecases referred to above, the conclusion isirresistible that the teachers of privateschools would be entitled to the same scaleof pay and other allowances. According toMr. Kalra, the aforesaid circular, in fact,are in the nature of a higher scale of pay and not as an incentive, as is contendedby the learned counsel appearing for the state.
4. Be it stated that even though no counteraffidavit had been filed by the state in theHigh Court and a concession was madeby the counsel appearing for the state, statingthat the circular dated 8.2.1994 is inrelation to the scale of pay of a teacher, inthe special leave petitions filed in this Courtby the state, no ground had been taken that no such concession had been made.Though in course of hearing of these appeals,Mr. Anand vehemently contendedthat the concession on a question of lawshould not bind the state in assailing thatconcession in this Court and further the circulardated 8.2.1994 is in the nature of astagnation/promotion policy intended forthose employees who have not been ableto get higher promotion notwithstandinghaving rendered certain years of serviceand, therefore, the benefits flowing fromsuch circular cannot be conferred on theteachers of privately managed schools, buton examining the circular dated 8.2.1994,which was annexed as Annexure P-7 tothe writ petition filed before the High Court,we have no manner of doubt that it relatesto a higher scale of pay and, therefore, inour considered opinion, the concession ofthe state counsel before the High Court waswell founded and we see no infirmity withthe impugned judgment of the High Courtproceeding on the basis of the aforesaidconcession. The Court in HaryanaAdhyapak Sangh’s case (supra) has unequivocallyindicated that the teachers ofaided schools must be paid the same scaleand dearness allowance as teachers ofgovernment schools. In Rajpal Sharma’s case (supra), the same principle has beenreiterated. That being the position, the conclusionof the High Court that the teachersof the private schools would be entitled tothe benefits of the circular dated 8.2.1994is unassailable and we, therefore, sustainthat part of the conclusion of the impugnedjudgment.
5. Coming, however, to the question as to whether the benefits given to the governmentemployees under the circular dated14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, and 7.1.1994 whichwere annexed as Annexures P-3, P-4 andP-6 we are of the considered opinion thatthe High Court committed error in grantingthe benefits of those circular to the employeesof private schools. In State of Punjaband Ors. v. Om Prakash Kaushal and Ors., a bench of this Courtexamined the question as to what is thetrue meaning of “parity in employment” andultimately came to the conclusion that allincentives granted to the employees of thegovernment cannot be claimed as a materof right by the employee under privatemanagement, as that would not be withinthe expression “parity in employment”. TheCourt unequivocally said that the scale ofpay and the dearness allowance to a governmentservant or the teacher of government school can be claimed as a materof right by the teachers of a privateschool and not other incentives which thegovernment might be intending to conferon its own employees. This being the positionand on examining the aforesaid threecircular which were annexed as P-3, P-4and P-6 in the writ petition filed before theHigh Court, we are of the considered opinionthat the High Court committed error ingranting the benefit of those circular alsoto the teaches of the privately managedschools. We, therefore, set aside that partof the conclusion in the impugned judgment.
6. In course of arguments, Mr. Anand, appearing for the State Of Haryana, placedbefore us the subsequent rules framedunder proviso to Article 309 of the Constitutionof India in support of his contentionthat even the so-called pay-scale grantedby the circular dated 8.2.1994 would notbe available to the teachers to the privateschools. We, however, do not express anyopinion as to the effect of the aforesaid rulesframed under the proviso to Article 309 ofthe Constitution and parties should work -out remedies available to them under thesaid rules.
7. In the aforesaid premises, the appealsare allowed in part to the extent indicatedabove. There will be no order as to costs.