CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11738 of 1989
Date of decision 5.5.2009
Jasbir Kaur and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
Present: Ms. K.K..Kahlon, Advocate in CWP Nop.11738 of 1989
None for the respondents in CWP No. 13856,16809,
13532, 1280 of 1989
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Avocate in CWP No. 837 & 5065 of 1990
for the petitioners
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11738,
13856, 16809 of 1989, 837, 13532, 1280 and 5065 of 1990 as common
question of law has been raised in all these petitions. For the purposes of
this judgement, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 11738 of
1989.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays
for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant to the petitioners the
revised pay scale of Hindi/ Punjabi teachers in view of their already having
been granted the pre-revised pay scale of Hindi/ Punjab teachers in
accordance with their qualifications.
The petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers. Apart from
CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 2
the qualifications required for the post of JBT teacher, the petitioners also
acquired the qualification of Giani/ Prabhakar. On 23.7.1957, Government
issued a letter (P1) revising the pay scales of teachers w.e.f. 1.5.1957. It was
stated in the letter dated 23.7.1957 that the teachers working in the
Education Department will be entitled to the pay scales according to the
qualifications possessed by them. Again on 19.2.1979, the State
Government issued a letter directing that only those teachers working in the
Education Department who have improved their qualifications before the
issue of the said letter be allowed the benefit of their qualifications. In
support of the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
on two Division Bench judgements of this Court in the cases of State of
Punjab v. Kirpal Singh 1975(2)SLR 621 and Labh Singh Garcha v. State
of Punjab and others 1976 SLWR 476.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned State counsel at the outset has
placed reliance on the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of
Kanwaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996(1) RSJ 313 and Hon’ble the
Supreme Court rendered in the case Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab and
others AIR 1984 SC 1901 and argued that the matter is squarely covered
against the petitioners. According to the learned State counsel the
petitioners are entitled to claim only that pay for the post against which they
were appointed. Reliance is placed on paras 9 and 10 of the judgement
which reads thus:
“9. It appears that several teachers filed writ petitions in the
High Court claiming revised scales of pay on the ground that
they had taken graduate degrees and, therefore, were entitled to
the benefit of the grade mentioned against Category ‘A’ in the
CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 3Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. In opposition to the writ
petitions, the State Government contended that the letter did
not contemplate the grant of the grade to all teachers but only to
teachers appointed as Masters. The High Court held the
teachers entitled to the benefit of the revised grade, whether or
not they had been appointed as Masters, because, in the opinion
of the High Court, the qualifying criterion was the possession
of a graduate degree. The judgment of the High Court was
affirmed by this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia (AIR 1976 SC
2459) (supra). The State Government found it difficult, having
regard to the prevailing burden on its financial resources, to
extend the benefit of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 to
the much wider section of teachers covered in consequence of
the Court’s judgment. Accordingly, the State Government
issued Circular letter No. 9/9/79-FR(2)/143 dated February 19,
1979, paragraph 3 of which stated that in order to ensure that
“these unintended and large financial implications do not
continue arising in future” the whole matter had been
reconsidered by the State Government and as a result the
Government ordered that henceforth the teachers of the
Education Department, would not automatically be entitled to
placement in the higher scales of pay in terms of paragraph 3 of
the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 by the mere circumstance
of their improving or acquiring higher qualifications in the
course of their service. The rigour of the restriction was relaxed
in some measure. Paragraph 3 said further :-
CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 4
“However, in order to avoid discrimination between
teachers who have already been allowed higher scales of pay
on account of having improved their qualifications and those
who have not yet been allowed this benefit even though they
also possess higher qualifications it is decided that all teachers
in the Education Department who have improved their
qualifications before the issue of this letter may be allowed the
benefit of higher scale of pay on the basis of their
qualifications.”
The benefit was not extended to those who were appointed or
who had improved their qualifications after the issue of that
Circular letter. The teachers continued to agitate for a more
generous dispensation. The State Government then issued
Circular letter No. 8937-5 ED. 1179/2659 dated September 20,
1979, which declared :-
“The implementation of the decision contained in
Finance Department circular letter No. 9/9/79 FR(2)/143 dated
February 19, 1979 to grant higher pay scales to the teachers on
the basis of higher qualifications was kept pending for want of
clarification on certain points from the Finance Department
which has now become available and is reproduced below :-
1. The higher scale may be allowed from the date of passing the
respective higher examination by the concerned teacher where
this has already been done. However, actual payment at
enhanced rates should commence from 12-2-79 and the
payment of arrears accruing from the date of passing the
CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 5
examination till 13-2-1979 be restricted to the maximum for 38
months.
2. The benefit of the higher scale may be allowed from the date
a particular teacher is appointed on regular basis or the date of
passing the higher examination, whichever is later, but the
payment of arrears, as a result of grant of such benefit should
be restricted to a period of 38 months only, as already
mentioned above.
3. The teachers placed in the higher scale can only be regularly
adjusted when corresponding posts in the higher scale become
available; in that case such teachers may continue to enjoy the
higher scale as a personal measure till they are adjusted against
regular posts as and when the same become available.”
10. It was clarified that the contemplated benefit was confined
to the categories of teachers mentioned in the Circular letter
No. 5058.FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23, 1957.”
The aforesaid proposition of law could not be successfully disputed
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The letter dated 23.7.1957 used to
be basis of claim for increments/ higher pay scale on the ground of higher
education qualifications. Hence the pay scales were linked with education
qualifications. However, the aforesaid position underwent change when
letter dated 23.7.1957 was withdrawn on 19.2.1979. The instructions issued
on 19.2.1979 de-linked higher education qualification from the pay scales
which has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is now well
settled that the pay scale of the post on which the petitioners have been
appointed are to be given irrespective of their educational qualifications.
CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and
six connected cases. 6
Such being the legal position there is no escape from the conclusion that the
writ petitioners are not entitled to claim additional increments on acquiring
higher qualifications. However, learned counsel for the petitioners prays
that no recovery be effected . The writ petitions are accordingly disposed
of. However, the respondents are directed not to effect recovery, if any,
from the petitioners.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected
petitions.
(M.M.Kumar)
5.5.2009 Judge
okg