REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4714 OF 2006
State of Haryana and others ...Appellants
Versus
Hem Lata Gupta and others ...Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4715 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4716 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4717 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4719 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4721 OF 2006
J U D G M E N T
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court whereby the alleged denial of advance increments to the writ
petitioners (respondents herein) has been declared illegal and the appellants
have been directed to grant them increments in terms of the instructions issued
2
by the Government of Punjab vide Memo No. 6462-ED-II(2)60/32640 dated
1.9.1960 and the Government of Haryana vide letter No.152-Edu-II-69/540
dated 5.1.1968.
2. The respondents joined service as teachers in different categories i.e.,
Lecturers, Masters/Mistresses, Language Teachers and Physical Training
Instructors either in the undivided State of Punjab or the newly formed State of
Haryana, which came into being with effect from 1.11.1966. Some of the
respondents possessed post-graduate qualifications at the time of entry in the
service while others claim to have acquired such qualifications after joining the
service. Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and others filed Writ Petition No. 18638/1997 for
issue of a mandamus to the concerned authorities of the Government of
Haryana to give them benefit of 2/3 advance increments from the date of
acquiring post-graduate qualifications in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued
by the Government of Punjab. The same was disposed of by the High Court with
a direction that representation dated 1.10.1997 submitted by the writ-petitioners
be decided by the competent authority by passing a reasoned order. In
compliance of the Court’s directive, the Director of Secondary Education,
Haryana (for short, `the Director’), passed order dated 30.7.1998 whereby he
rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that after fixation of their
pay in the revised pay scales in terms of the policy contained in letter dated
5.1.1968 of the Government of Haryana, the teachers are not entitled to advance
3
increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of
Punjab. The Director also observed that the instructions issued by the
Government of Punjab were applicable only to the Masters working in the grade
of Rs.110/250 and were not applicable to other teachers like Junior Basic
Teachers, Language Teachers, Art and Craft Teachers, Physical Training
Instructors, Headmasters and Lecturers and, therefore, they cannot claim
advance increments in terms of those instructions. For the sake of reference,
the relevant portions of order dated 30.7.1998 are extracted below:-
I. “That the petitioners were the members of Punjab
Educational Service Class-III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 and
their conditions of service were governed by the provisions
of the said rules. The pay has been defined in para 10 of
the said rules as under:
10. Pay: Members of the service will be entitled to such
scale of pay as may be authorized by the Govt. from time to
time.
This rule clearly contemplates that members of the service
like the petitioners will be entitled to such scale of pay as
authorized by Govt. from time to time, meaning thereby, as
soon as the pay scales of the employees are revised, the
present pay scale attached with the post will be of no
consequence.
II. That as per rule 10 of the said service rules the petitioners
are entitled to such scales of pay as authorized by the govt.
from time to time. In Appendix A of the said rules the pay
scales of Rs.110/250 with a higher start of 2/5 advance
increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualifications which
was enforced at the time of framing of the said service rules
was only provided for the post of Masters/Mistresses and not
to other categories of teachers. The said scale of pay
remained operative upto 30.11.1967 because after formation
of the State of Haryana, the State Govt. vide letter dated
5.1.1968 had further revised the pay scale of the
4Masters/Mistresses from Rs.110/250 to 220/400 w.e.f.
1.12.1967. and by virtue of the letter dated 5.1.1968 the
earlier circulars regarding revision of pay scales issued by
the either Governments stood automatically superseded.
Meaning thereby Masters/Mistresses who were earlier made
eligible for the grant of benefit of advance increments in
terms of the pay scales shown in Appendix A of the service
rules 1955 and further supplemented as per joint Punjab
Govt. letter No. 6382-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960
become disentitled to the benefit of advance increments on
acquiring Post Graduation qualifications after having been
given revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967. In other words
such Masters/Mistresses who got the Post Graduation
qualification on or after 1.12.1967 and were appointed in the
service or after 1.12.1967 are not eligible to get the benefit
of higher start of 2/3 increments as such provisions did not
exist in the Govt. letter dated 5.1.68 under which the grades
were revised w.e.f. 1.12.1967. By virtue of the statutory
sanction in rule 10 of the Punjab Educational Service Class-
III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 vide which the pay scales
were subject to variation from time to time, the petitioners
are not entitled to the advance increments as after revision
of pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967 the pay scales shown in
Appendix A in the said service rules 1965 and letter dated
23.7.57 did not remain in existence as the petitioners have
either been appointed after 1.12.67 or acquired the
M.A./M.Sc. qualifications after 1.12.67.
III. xxx xxx xxx IV. That after 1.12.67, the State Govt. had further revised the
scales of pay of its employees including the petitioners w.e.f.
1.4.79 and 1.1.86 by framing rules under the proviso of
Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these rules are
known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987
published on 29.2.80 and 29.4.87 respectively. At this time
also as provision of grant of 2/3 advance increments on
acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed and as such the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of advance
increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed
and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of
advance increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.
V. xxx xxx xxx
5
VI. That further mere look of the provisions of Appendix-A of
the said rules 1955 and later on supplemented vide Punjab
Govt., letter No.6482-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960
would show that the benefit of 2/3 advance increments was
only given to the category of Masters/Mistresses working in
the grade of Rs.110/250 and not to the other categories of
teachers like J.B.T., Maths, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Art & Craft
teachers, P.T.I., Headmasters and Lecturers. Thus those
petitioners who are working/appointed against the said posts
are also not entitled to 2/3 advance increments on acquiring
of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.”
3. Respondents Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and 11 others challenged the
aforementioned order in C.W.P. No. 17842/1998. They pleaded that in view of
the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960,
they are entitled to advance increments as of right and fixation of their pay in
the revised pay scales with effect from 1.12.1967 cannot be made a ground for
denying them the benefit of advance increments. In the counter affidavit filed
before the High Court, the appellants pleaded that the respondents are not
entitled to advance increments in terms of the instructions issued by the
Government of Punjab because the same will be deemed to have been
superseded with the revision of pay scales of various categories of teachers with
effect from 1.12.1967.
4. By an order dated 8.1.2001, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
the writ petition and issued direction, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.
4714/2006. The Division Bench relied upon the judgments of this Court in
6
Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 697, State of Haryana
v. Harbans Lal (2002) 10 SCC 125 and held that even though pay scales of the
teaches were revised by the Government of Haryana, the earlier instructions
were not superseded and, as such, the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit
of advance increments in terms of the policy decision contained in Government
of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960. The Division Bench also noted that teachers
employed in Kurukshetra District have been allowed personal pay equal to one
increment in their respective grades for a period of 5 years and held that other
teachers cannot be discriminated. The writ petitions filed by other respondents
were likewise allowed and similar direction was issued for grant of advance
increments to them.
5. Shri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
argued that as a result of revision of pay scales of the teachers with effect from
1.12.1967, the policy contained in Government of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960
will be deemed to have been superseded and the High Court committed serious
error by relying upon the said memo for issuing a mandamus for grant of
advance increments to the respondents. Shri Misra referred to letters dated
5.1.1968, 20.6.1977 and 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of Haryana and
argued that once the State Government took a conscious decision to revise the
pay scales of teachers and grant them increments on fulfillment of the specified
conditions, the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab could not be
7
invoked by the respondents for claiming benefit of advance increments. On the
other hand, Shri Balbir Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that on acquiring higher qualifications, his clients became entitled to advance
increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of
Punjab and they cannot be deprived of that right simply because the
Government of Haryana decided to revise the pay scales with effect from
1.12.1967.
6. We have considered the respective submissions. In exercise of the
powers conferred upon him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, the Governor of Punjab framed the Punjab Educational Service Class-III
(School Cadre) Rules, 1955 (for short, “the 1955 Rules”) for regulating
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Punjab
Educational State Service, Class III, School Cadre. The same were notified on
30.5.1957. Rule 10 of the 1955 Rules lays down that members of the service will
be entitled to such scale of pay as may be authorized by the Government from
time to time. The scales of pay of different categories of teachers, which were in
force at the relevant time, were specified in Appendix `A’ annexed to the 1955
Rules. For the post of Headmasters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-
350. For the post of Masters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-300. For
certain other categories of teachers, the pay scale was Rs.110-8-190/10-250 with
a start of Rs.126 to those having the qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with third
8
division and Rs.150 to those possessing qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with
second or first division. After two months, the Government of Punjab issued
circular dated 23.7.1957 for revision of the scales of pay of certain posts
including those of teachers. This was followed by Memo dated 1.9.1960 vide
which the State Government sanctioned grant of advance increments to the
Masters on their acquiring postgraduate qualifications. The relevant portions of
Memo dated 1.9.1960 which constitutes the foundation of the respondents’ claim
for advance increments are reproduced below:
“Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded to the grant of
advance increments to the Masters working in the Punjab
Education Department, who improve/have improved their
educational qualifications in the manner detailed below:-
—————————————————————————-
Category of Nature of improved Extent of advance
personnel qualifications increments
—————————————————————————-
Masters (110-8-190/10-250) 2 increments
MA/MSc./M.Ed.
(3rd Division)
MA/M.Sc./M.Ed. 3 increments
(1st/2nd Division)
2. The advantage will be enjoyed only once and not for doing
any subsequent M.A. It will not be available to those who
were given higher start of entry for being MA/M.Sc./M.Ed.
3. These orders will take effect from the date of issue.
The original date of increments shall remain unchanged and the
persons concerned should be allowed to retain their old dates of
increments.”
9
7. Though not directly relevant to the issue raised in these appeals, we may
make a mention of circular letter No. 961-4GS-62/5593 dated 16.2.1962 (this
circular finds a mention in letter dated 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of
Haryana), vide which the Government of Punjab decided to give advance
increments/rapid promotions to officers going abroad to improve their
qualifications. This was done with a view to ensure that the officers who
improve their qualifications in foreign countries continue to serve the State.
8. The question of revision of pay scales of the teachers employed under the
Government of Haryana was considered by the Education Commission which is
also known as Kothari Commission. The recommendations made by that
Commission were accepted by the President of India and were implemented by
the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967. For this purpose, instructions
were issued vide letter No. 152-Edu-II-69/540 dated 5.1.1968, the relevant
paragraphs whereof are reproduced below:
I am directed to say that the matter concerning the revision
of scales of pay of teaching personnel working in Govt. Schools in
Haryana has been engaging the attention of Govt. for sometime
past. After careful consideration, the President of India is pleased
to accept the recommendations of the Education Commission
popularly known “KOTHARI COMMISSION” and revise the scale of
pay of Govt. teachers w.e.f. Ist December 1967 in the following
manner:-
Sr.No. Category of teachers Revised grade
1. J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. & V i) Rs.125-5-
150/5-250
1
Teacher, Drawing Master, (for 85% of the
Tailoring Mistresses, Art cadre)
& Craft teachers, Domestic ii) Rs.250-10-
Mistresses & Shastries 300
(for 15% of the
Cadre)
N.B. The untrained Teachers with Higher Secondary Matriculation
qualifications will draw the starting of Rs.100/- mensum and they
will be integrated in the regular pay of scales only after they obtain
necessary profession qualification.
2. Masters/Mistresses i) Rs.220-8-
(Trained Graduates) 300-10-400
(for 85% of the
cadre)
ii) Rs.400-20-
500
(for 15% of the
cadre)
N.B. I) The 1st & 2nd class graduates will be entitled to
draw one advance increment in addition.
ii) The Untrained graduates will be allowed the starting
salary of Rs.200/- per mensum and will be entitled for
the regular scales of pay only after attaining the
prescribed professional training.
3. Lecturers (Post Graduates) i) Rs.300-25-
450-25-600
(For Ist & 2nd
class M.A.'s and
M.Ed)
ii) Rs.250-25-
450/25-550
(For 3rd class
M.A.'s and
M.Sc's)
N.B. The Lecturers will be given one advance increment as
soon as they attain professional training.
1
xxx xxx xxx”
9. After revision of the pay scales of various categories of teachers, the
Government of Haryana issued instructions vide letters dated 26.7.1972,
26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for grant of monetary benefits in the form of personal
pay to those Government servants who improved their qualifications by
undertaking further studies within the country and abroad. In 1977, all the
existing instructions were superseded and fresh instructions were issued on the
subject vide letter No. 4718-2GS-II-77/17173 dated 20.6.1977, the relevant
portions of which are reproduced below:
“Subject: Grant of personal pay to Govt. servants who improve
their qualifications by further study within the country and abroad.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the instructions contained in this
Department’s letter No. 4857-GSII-72/28344 dated 26.9.1972,
letter No. 6452-2GSII-74/28173 dated 26.11.1974 and letter No.
434-2GS-II 75/21469 dated 17.7.1975 on the subject noted above
and to say that the Government has further considered the matter
and in supersession of the aforesaid instructions, taken the
following decisions:-
1. Personal pay shall be granted to all employees, who improve
their qualifications after joining Govt. service, if the qualifications so
acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than the
minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were
recruited at the time of entry into Govt. Service, in accordance with
the scales and conditions laid down in the succeeding
paragraphs/sub-paragraphs:-
(i) Personal pay admissible for acquiring each of the following
qualifications shall be equal to the amount of increment(s)
mentioned against each qualifications:-
1
(a) Diploma of at least one year duration One increment
(b) Law degree or post graduate Two increments
(c) Doctorate or Post Doctorate Four increments
qualification
Provided that the maximum benefit will not exceed the equivalent
of four increments.
(ii) Govt. employees who have acquired the aforesaid
qualifications after 26.9.1972 (i.e. whose result as declared on or
after the said date) shall be eligible for the benefit of personal pay
with effect from the date of declaration of the result of the
examination concerned and those who had improved their
educational qualifications before 26.9.1972 i.e. whose result was
declared before the said date shall be eligible for the benefit of
personal pay with effect from the date of issue of these
instructions. In either of the two type of cases, thereto of
increment for the purpose of calculating the amount of personal
pay shall be taken to be the which was last drawn prior to the date
of eligibility.
(iii) No benefit shall not be given for such of these qualifications
as had already been acquired by the Govt. employee before joining
Govt. service.”
10. The decisions contained in letter dated 20.6.1977 and other related
communications were withdrawn by the State Government vide letter dated
20.12.1982, which reads thus:
“No.14/38/82-2GS-II
From
The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.
To
1. All Heads of Departments, the Commissioners,
Ambala and Hissar Divisions, all Deputy
1
Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in
Haryana
2. The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court,
ChandigarhDated, Chandigarh, the 20th December, 1982
Subject: Grant of personal pay to Government servants who
improve their qualifications by further study within
the country and abroad.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the instruction contained in Punjab
Government No.961-4GS-62/5593, dated the 16th February, 1962,
Haryana Government letter No.4718-2GS-II-77/17173, dated the
20th June, 1977, letter No.14/3/78-GS-II dated 26.7.78 and letter
No. of even number dated the 23rd October, 1978 and letter
No.14/18/78-GS-II, dated the 16th July, 1979, on the subject noted
above and to say that the matter concerning grant of advance
increments as personal pay to Government employees who improve
their academic qualifications while in service has been under the
consideration of the Government for some time. It has now been
decided to discontinue the practice of giving advance increments to
Government employees for acquiring higher qualifications and all
the instructions issued on the subject as referred to above should
be treated as withdrawn with immediate effect.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Joint Secretary General Admn.
For Chief Secretary to Government Haryana”
11. Having noticed the factual matrix of the case and various instructions
issued by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, we shall now consider
whether the direction given by the High Court for grant of advance increments to
1
the respondents from the date of acquiring postgraduate qualifications is legally
correct and justified.
12. A reading of rule 10 of the 1955 Rules and Appendix-A appended thereto
shows that the pay scales prescribed for different categories of teachers prior to
30.5.1957 were made part of the Rules. After two years, the Government of
Punjab issued instructions vide letter dated 23.7.1957 for grant of higher scales
of pay to the teachers from the date of acquiring higher qualifications. By Memo
dated 1.9.1960, sanction was accorded for grant of 2/3 advance increments to
the Masters from the date of improving their educational qualifications.
However, it was made clear that the advantage of advance increments will not
be available to those who were given higher start on account of possessing the
postgraduate qualifications. This stipulation was incorporated in Memo dated
1.9.1960 because some of the teachers who possessed postgraduate
qualifications were already given the benefit of additional increments by being
allowed higher start in the prescribed pay scale. These instructions could be
treated as having been issued by the Government of Punjab under rule 10 of the
1955 Rules. The teachers employed under the Government of Haryana got
benefit of the policy decisions contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 and Memo
dated 1.9.1960 till their pay scales were revised vide letter dated 5.1.1968.
1
13. The argument of the respondents, which found favour with the High Court
that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not
result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive
in the first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, we are convinced that the said
argument is fallacious and should have been rejected by the High Court . All the
financial benefits including increments admissible to the teachers in terms of
extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration by Kothari
Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales. If this was not
so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to
first and second class graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales
of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of
the cadre) were prescribed. Similarly, there was no justification to give one
advance increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional training.
Equally, there was no occasion for the State Government to give additional
benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on
improving qualifications after joining Govt. service. This being the position, we
are convinced that the High Court was not right in holding that the decision
taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations of Kothari
Commission for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and grant of
revised pay scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have the effect of
superseding the policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960.
1
14. In our view, the teachers employed under the Government of Haryana
could claim benefit of the higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of
the policy decisions taken by the Government of undivided Punjab and
instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made
effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter.
15. At this stage, we may usefully notice some of the judgments. In State of
Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740, this Court was called upon
to consider whether teachers were entitled to higher pay scales in terms of the
policy contained in letter dated 23.7.1957. On behalf of the State of Punjab, it
was argued that the policy decision taken by the Government was not intended
to give benefit of higher scales of pay to all the teachers who acquired higher
qualifications and before claiming higher post, the concerned teachers were
required to be selected by the Board. While rejecting the argument, this court
held as under:
“The High Court said that the contention of the State that the
teachers could not be considered for promotion unless they
satisfied the condition of subject combination namely, that if they
were ordinary graduates with training qualifications, they must
have studied two out of the four subjects, namely. History,
Geography, Economics and Political Science is not supported by the
letter dated November 7, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the
letter does not speak of any limitation of subject combination for
promotion.
Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to the
posts of masters but never continuously beyond a period of six
1months. After completion of six months, there was a break to avoid
continuity in service for the posts of masters beyond six months.
The State contended that the teachers could not be considered for
promotion unless the Board were satisfied that the teachers if
ordinary graduates with training qualifications must have also
studied two out of four subjects of History, Geography, Economics
and Political Science. The teachers on the other hand contended
that once the State Government had taken a decision as embodied
in the letter dated November 7, 1958, the policy of not allowing the
teachers to continue beyond six months on temporary basis was
nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the letter dated
November 7, 1958. The teachers also contended that the
promotion of teachers to masters is completely independent of any
consideration like the combination of subjects. The High Court
rightly held that letter dated November 7, 1958 was subject only to
two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than
one-fourth of the vacancies of the posts of masters and the other
was that the claim by way of promotion would be considered by
the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The
High Court rightly held that the letter dated November 7, 1958 was
not subject to the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled.
There are three categories of teachers — Science Masters,
Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of
combination of subjects can be read into the letter of November 7,
1958.”
16. In Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) 3 SCC 113, this Court
recognized the entitlement of the teachers to get higher scales of pay from the
date of acquiring higher qualifications in terms of the policy contained in letter
dated 23.7.1957 issued by the Government of Punjab. The plea of the State
Government that those teachers who acquired B.T. or B. Ed. after 1.12.1967 i.e.
the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before 5.9.1979, would
be entitled to higher grade only with effect from 5.9.1979 and those who
acquired higher qualification after 5.9.1979 would not be entitled to the higher
1
grade was negatived only on the ground that 1968 order had not been brought
to the notice of the Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (supra).
This is evident from the following portion of paragraph 2 of the judgment:
According to the judgment of the High Court under appeal, the
1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order that
teachers acquired BT or BEd qualification should get the higher
grade and that a concession was shown in 1979 enabling the
teachers who acquired the BT or BEd qualification between 1968
and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979. In our opinion this is
plainly to ignore all the events that took place between 1957 and
1980. The principle that pay should be linked to qualification was
accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh
Bhatia case1 was argued in the High Court and in the Supreme
Court there was not the slightest whisper that the principle had
been departed from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order
expressly stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari
Commission’s report in regard to scales of pay and as already
pointed out by us the main feature of the Kothari Commission’s
report in regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification. That
was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced in
Kirpal Singh Bhatia case. Even subsequently when several writ
petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and when the Government issued consequential orders, it
was never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from the
principle of qualification linked pay. The 1968 order must be read in
the light of the 1957 order and the report of the Kothari
Commission which was accepted. If so read there can be no doubt
that the Government never intended to retract from the principle
that teachers acquiring the BT or BEd would be entitled to the
higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring
that qualification.
17. With respect, we find it difficult to appreciate as to how the so-called
failure of the Government to bring the 1968 order to the notice of this Court in
Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case was relevant for deciding the issue raised in
Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (supra). The facts of Kirpal Singh
1
Bhatia’s case were that the respondents before this Court were employed as
teachers in the former State of PEPSU. After merger of the State of PEPSU with
the State of Punjab, the respondents claimed the revised scale of pay from the
date of acquiring the degrees of B.T. or its equivalent in terms of the policy
contained in letter dated 23.7.1957. They also claimed promotion to the post of
Master. The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The
appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by this Court. Since letter dated
5.1.1968 issued by the Government of Haryana for giving effect to the decision
taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations made by Kothari
Commission for revision of the pay scales of the Government teachers had no
bearing whatsoever on the claim of Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others, there was no
occasion for the Government of Punjab to produce that letter before the High
Court and/or this Court. We are sure, if the contents of letter dated 5.1.1968 are
read in a correct perspective, interpretation thereof in Chaman Lal’s case
cannot be treated as correct. As per the recommendations of Kothari
Commission, the revision of pay scales was linked with qualifications. This has
been noted by the Court in Chaman Lal’s case and yet the so-called omission
on the Government’s part to produce letter dated 5.1.1968 before this Court in
Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case was made a ground for holding that
notwithstanding revision of the pay scales of the teachers employed under the
Government of Haryana, they would continue to get the benefit of the policy
contained in letter dated 23.7.1957.
2
18. With a view to overcome the difficulties created by the judgment in
Chaman Lal’s case, the Government of Haryana issued instructions dated
9.3.1990 making explicit what was implicit in the instructions issued vide letter
dated 5.1.1968 for implementation of the recommendations made by Kothari
Commission. In Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 697,
this Court considered the question whether the teachers employed under the
Government of Haryana are entitled to higher grade admissible to Masters with
effect from the dates of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications. The concerned
teachers relied upon the policy contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 of the
Government of Punjab, judgment in Chaman Lal’s case and pleaded that the
benefit of higher grade cannot be denied by the Government of Haryana despite
the policy contained in Finance Department letter dated 9.3.1990. On behalf of
the respondents, it was argued that the policy instructions contained in letter
dated 23.7.1957 were superseded by the subsequent instructions issued on
9.3.1990. The Court extracted the observations made in Chaman Lal’s case,
referred to the policy contained in letter dated 9.3.1990 and held that once the
Government altered the earlier policy, the judgment in Chaman Lal’s case will
have no application and the appellants who had not acquired B.T./B.Ed.
qualification before 9.3.1990 cannot claim the benefit of higher grade of pay
automatically.
2
19. In State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat (1999) 8 SCC 44, a
somewhat similar issue was considered. The High Court had accepted the claim
of the teachers that they are entitled to higher scales of pay according to
qualifications irrespective of the post held by them. This Court noted that the
recommendations made by Kothari Commission were accepted by the State
Government and the pay scales of the teachers were revised vide letter dated
5.1.1968. The Court also took cognizance of the policy contained in letter dated
9.3.1990 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Haryana and
rejected the claim of the respondent-teachers that they are entitled to higher
scales of pay applicable to the post of Lecturers on their acquiring post-graduate
qualifications. Paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the judgment which contain
detailed consideration of the issue read as under:
19. With effect from 1-11-1966, the State of Haryana came into
existence. Earlier there was an Education Commission popularly
known as “the Kothari Commission” at the national level which
made recommendations regarding further revision of pay scales of
Teachers who were divided into several categories. The basis for
classifications adopted by the Commission was academic
qualifications. The recommendations of the Kothari Commission
were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales of
Teachers were revised and the decision of the Government was
contained in Letter No. 152-Edu.II-68/540 dated 5-1-1968 from the
Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department,
Chandigarh to the Director of Public Instruction, Haryana,
Chandigarh. The letter also fixed the percentage in which various
incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher scale or the
lower scale as mentioned in the letter. Column II referred to the
category of teachers and Column III set out the revised grades. Sl.
No. 1 pertains to JBT/JST/JAV etc. Sl. No. 2 pertains to
Masters/Mistresses (trained graduates). Sl. No. 3 relates to
Lecturers (postgraduates). The NB reads: “The Lecturers will be
2
given one advance increment as soon as they attain professional
training.” Sl. No. 4 refers to Headmasters/Headmistresses etc.
There is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of
Lecturers was included in Appendix `A’ to the Punjab Educational
Service Rules or that it came to be governed by the said rules. The
letter refers merely to revision of scales of pay and does not set out
the method of recruitment or conditions of service. There is nothing
in the letter to show that the categories of Teachers set out at Sl.
No. 1 and Sl. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become Lecturers
or entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the Lecturers.
20. It may be mentioned here that there was an earlier letter
issued by the Punjab Government on 29-7-1967 revising the pay
scales of the teaching personnel of government schools in the State
of Punjab w.e.f. 1-11-1966 after consideration of the
recommendations made by the Kothari Commission. Though the
said letter is not applicable to the Teachers in the present case,
reference has been made to the same and reliance has been placed
on a decision of this Court in which the said letter was considered.
We will advert to that decision later and it is unnecessary for us to
dilate any further on the letter of the Punjab Government dated 29-
7-1967.
22. Insofar as the State of Haryana is concerned, one other letter
has been placed before us by the counsel for the State Government
viz. Letter No. 7/2(I)/90-4 FR-I dated, Chandigarh, 9-3-1990 sent
by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of
Haryana, Finance Department to the Commissioner & Secretary to
Government of Haryana, Education Department. That letter makes
a reference to the circular letter dated 23-7-1957 issued by the
Punjab Government to which we have already adverted in detail.
The letter also makes reference to the subsequent letter dated 5-1-
1968 which has also been referred to by us earlier. Reference has
been made to subsequent Notification No. GSR-
20/Const./Art/309/89 dated 29-2-1980 by virtue of which the letter
dated 5-1-1968 stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the
said letter that the Haryana Government had revised the pay scales
further under Notification No. GSR-20/Const./Art/309/87 dated 29-
4-1987 with effect from 1986. Ultimately, the letter clarifies that
the teachers in the Education Department in the State of Haryana
were not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms
of para 3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23-7-1957 or any
subsequent letter or notification issued by the Haryana Government
2
referred to therein which had become inoperative. The last
sentence in para 6 of the letter reads as follows:
“The Masters/Teachers in the Education Department will be
placed in the scales of pay of their respective categories to which
they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere
possessing/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them
automatically to claim higher pay scales.”
23. Thus a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have
been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to
time and the subsequent government policy letters and circulars
show that the Teachers are not entitled to higher scales of pay
applicable to the posts of Lecturers automatically on their acquiring
postgraduate qualifications or such qualifications as are prescribed
for the post of Lecturers. We have already pointed out that the
post of Lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets
of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service Class III
School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the
common question raised in these matters has to be answered in
the negative against the Teachers/Masters/Mistresses some of
whom are respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 and the
others being petitioners in SLPs and appellants in Civil Appeal No.
2104 of 1998.
20. The Court then considered various judgments rendered by this Court and
the High Court including Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case, Gurpal Tuli v. State of
Punjab 1984 Supp SCC 716, Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers’ Union v.
State of Punjab (1988) 2 SCC 407, Baij Nath v. State of Punjab (1996) 8
SCC 516, Chaman Lal’s case, Wazir Singh’s case, State of Haryana v.
Ravi Bala (1997) 1 SCC 267 and concluded that on acquiring postgraduate
qualification or qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturers, teachers are
not automatically entitled to the scales of pay of the Lecturers without being
appointed as Lecturers in accordance with the rules.
2
21. In our view, the doubts and confusion created due to the judgment in
Chaman Lal’s case on the entitlement of the teachers to automatically get
particular pay scale prescribed for higher post have been clarified by the
judgments in Wazir Singh’s case and Kamal Singh Saharawat’s case and
in view of the latter decisions, the respondents’ claim for grant of advance
increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of
Punjab cannot be accepted.
22. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while deciding
the writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court neither adverted to
the reasons assigned by the Director for rejecting the respondents’ claim for
advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated 30.7.1998. The
High Court also failed to notice that the writ petitions were filed not only by the
Masters/Mistresses, but also by other categories of teachers i.e., Lecturers,
Language Teachers, Physical Training Instructors etc. who could not, by any
stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in terms of Memo dated
1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab which was confined to the Masters
only. Therefore, on this ground also the direction given by the High Court for
grant of advance increments to the respondents cannot be sustained.
23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside
and the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court are
2
dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be made a ground
to deny the benefit, if any, admissible to the respondents or any one of them in
terms of the policy contained in letter dated 20.6.1977. Rather, the State
Government and the concerned authorities should suo motu undertake
appropriate exercise for grant of benefit of that policy to the respondents and
other similarly situated persons, pass appropriate orders and pay monetary
benefits to the concerned teachers within six months from the date of
production/receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that such benefit
shall not be admissible to the teachers who may have improved their
qualifications on or after 20.12.1982 i.e., the date on which the policy contained
in letter dated 20.6.1977 was withdrawn.
………………………………J.
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN)
……………………………..J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
New Delhi;
Dated: January 05, 2010.