{"id":37604,"date":"1997-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997"},"modified":"2018-08-22T11:46:17","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T06:16:17","slug":"state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: S. B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM CHANDER & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS. B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar, J.\n<\/p>\n
     State of  Haryana and Director of industrial Training &
\nVocational Education having obtained special leave to appeal
\nfrom this  Court under\tArticle 136  of the  Constitution of
\nIndia have  moved this appeal against the judgment and order
\nrendered by  the Punjab\t & Haryana  High  Court\t in  Letters
\nPatent Appeal  No.1267 of  1992 which  was dismissed  by the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court and whereby the judgment of
\nthe learned  Single Judge  of the  High\t Court\tagainst\t the
\nappellants was confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to high light the grievance of the appellants
\nit is  necessary to  note a  few backdrop facts.  Respondent
\nnos.1 and   2  who only\t remain in  the arena  of contest as
\nrespondent nos.3  and 4\t were ordered  to be  deleted by  an
\nearlier order of this Court dated 08th Apr 1997, are working
\nas Language  Teachers  in    Haryana  Government  Vocational
\nEducation  Institute.\tThey  teach  Hindi  and\t English  to
\nstandard 11  and 12  students who  study in such institutes.
\nThe respondents were appointed in pay scale of Rs.600-1100\/-
\nwhich was    subsequently  revised  to\tRs.1400-2600\/-\twith
\neffect from 1.1. 1986 as per Haryana  Civil Services (Revise
\nPay) Rules, 1987. The respondent ‘ grievance is that as they
\nwere Language  Teachers teaching students of standard 11 and
\n12 forming  part  of  higher  secondary\t educational  system
\nshould have  been paid\tthe same  pay scale  that  was\tmade
\navailable to  their counterparts  who were teaching standard
\n11 and 12 students in higher secondary schools in the State.
\nThat they  were equally\t circumscribed\tas  their  aforesaid
\ncounterparts and consequently on the principle of ‘Equal Pay
\nfor Equal Work’ they were entitled to higher pay scale which
\nwas made  available to\thigher secondary  school teachers in
\nthese schools. Said  higher pay scale was initially Rs.1640-
\n2940\/- which was further revised by the appellant-State with
\neffect from  01st May  1990 to\tRs.2000-3500\/-. It  is\tthis
\nrevised pay  scale  which,  according  to  the\trespondents,
\nshould have  been made available to them and as that was not
\ngranted they  filed Civil  Writ Petition No.16543 of 1990 in
\nthe High Court of Punjab & Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
     A learned\tSingle Judge of the High Court after hearing
\nthe appellants\therein as well as the contesting respondents
\nCame to\t the conclusion\t that there was no justification for
\nthe  appellant-State   to  deny\t equal\tpay  scales  to\t the
\nrespondents as\twere made  available to\t Lecturers in higher
\nsecondary schools  as the  nature of work carried out by the
\nrespondents was\t identical with\t the work of the teachers in
\nhigher secondary  schools. The\tlearned Judge  negatived the
\ncontention of  the  appellants\tthat  respondents  were\t not
\ncomparable with\t the higher secondary school teachers as the
\nrespondents’ educational  qualifications differed from those
\nwhich were  required to\t be possessed  by  higher  secondary
\nschool teachers-cum-lecturers.\tIn the\tview of\t the learned
\nSingle Judge educational qualification wise respondents were
\nbetter\tsituated.   The\t learned  Single  Judge\t accordingly
\nallowed the  writ petition  and directed  the appellants  to
\nmake available\tto  the\t respondents  higher  pay  scale  of
\nRs.2000-3500\/- as  was granted\tto higher  secondary  school
\nteachers. However  the arrears\tpayable to  the\t respondents
\nwere made  payable from\t the date  of\tthe judgment  of the
\nlearned Single Judge which rendered on 15th July 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  being aggrieved by the said decision of
\nthe learned Single Judge carried matter in appeal before the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court.  The respondents were on
\nthe other hand satisfied with  the direction of the grant of
\nback wages  as awarded\tby the\tlearned\t Single\t Judge.\t The
\nDivision Bench\tdismissed the  said Letters Patent Appeal by
\nits  judgment\tand  order  dated  04th\t October  1993\tduly
\nendorsing the  view of the learned Single Judge. That is how
\nthe appellants\thave landed  in this  Court.  After  earlier
\nissuing notice\tin the Special Leave Petition a Bench of two
\nlearned Judges of this Court by an order dated 20th February
\n1995 granted  special leave to appeal and also directed that
\npending appeal,\t there shall be an interim stay. Accordingly
\nthe order under appeal has remained stayed till date.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently
\nsubmitted that\tthe educational\t qualifications of  Language
\nTeachers in  vocational training  institutes  are  different
\nfrom the educational qualifications for being appointed as a
\nLecturer or Teacher in higher a secondary schools. He placed
\nin juxtaposition  the  educational  qualifications  of\tboth
\nthese classes of employees as under:\n<\/p>\n
Lecturers in the\t   Language teacher in the
\nschool cadre\t\t   vocational Education Institutes
\nMaster’s Degree in\ti) Language Teachers (Hindi)
\n2nd Division with\t   B.A. B.Ed with Hindi as
\n50% marks in the\t   one of Teaching subjects
\nrelevant subject.\t   in B Ed with a Master’s
\n\t\t\t   Degree.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      (ii) Language Teachers (English)
\n\t\t\t   B.A. B.Ed. with English as
\n\t\t\t   one of the Teaching subjects
\n\t\t\t   in B Ed with a Master’s
\n\t\t\t   degree.\n<\/p>\n
     He, therefore,  submitted that  a Language Teacher like
\nrespondents  having  ordinary  Pass  Class  Master’s  Degree
\ncannot claim  parity of\t pay scale with a Lecturer in school
\ncadre who  is required\tto have\t Master’s Degree  in  second
\ndivision with  50% marks  in the  relevant subject.  He next
\nsubmitted that\tthe  cadres  of\t both  these  categories  of
\nemployees are  different Institutions in which they work are
\nalso different Though they teach standard 11 and 12 students
\nthe respondents\t cannot be said to be teaching the same type
\nof students  as are  taught in\tstandard 11 and 12 in higher
\nsecondary schools  which are  non-technical schools. He also
\nsubmitted that the seniority of respondent-Language Teachers
\nin the\tvocational institutes  is kept\tin common  with\t the
\nseniority of Technical Instructor. He further submitted that
\ngranting of  pay scales\t is within  the domain\tof a  policy
\ndecision which\tthe appellants\thave to take in the light of
\nExpert Committee  report and  such  an\texercise  cannot  be
\nundertaken by courts on the abstract principle of ‘Equal Pay
\nfor Equal Work’. In support of his contention he invited our
\nattention to some of the judgments of this court to which we
\nwill make a reference at an appropriate stage in latter part
\nof this judgment. In short he submitted that the respondents
\nwere not at all comparable from the point of view of quality
\nof work and educational qualifications with the Lecturers in
\nschool cadre  and consequently\tthe High  Court had patently
\nerred in law in directing the appellants to pay the same pay
\nscales to the respondents as were available to the Lecturers
\nin school cadre.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other  hand  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents vehemently\tsubmitted that\tthe respondents were
\ndoing the  same type of work as their counterparts in school
\ncadre. That both these categories of employees were teaching
\nstandard 11  and 12  Students who  were belonging  to higher
\nsecondary system of education, that is, 10+2 system. That in
\nvocational education  institutes more  emphasis was given to
\ntechnical type\tof education.  But  so\tfar  as\t respondent-
\nLanguage Teachers  were concerned they had to teach standard
\n11 and\t12 students,  that is  to say,\tstudents  in  higher
\nsecondary classes  English and\tHindi  for  which  the\tsame
\nsyllabus  which\t was  prescribed  for  standard\t 11  and  12
\nstudents in  higher secondary schools was to be taught. That
\nthe nature  of examination  in these  subjects was also same
\nfor both these sets of students. Thus qualitatively and even
\nquantitatively the work which the respondents were doing was
\nalmost identical  with the  work which\ttheir\t counterpart
\nLanguage Teachers were doing while teaching higher secondary
\nschool students\t of standard  11 and  12. That so far as the
\neducational qualifications  were concerned  it was true that
\nthe Lecturers in school cadre were required to have Master’s
\nDegree in  second division  with 50%  marks in\tthe relevant
\nsubject, but  the said\teducational qualification  was\tmore
\nthan offset  so far as the educational qualifications of the
\nrespondent Language  Teachers were  concerned as they had to
\nhave additionally  B.A., B.Ed. Degree with Hindi or English,
\nas the\tcase may  be, as  one ff  the teaching\tsubjects  in
\nBachelor of  Education course  along with   master’s Degree.
\nTherefore, even\t though they  might be\tholding\t Pass  Class
\nMaster’s Degree their expertise in teaching was better being
\narmed with  Bachelor of\t Education Degree  which was not the
\nrequirement for\t Lecturers in  school  cadre.  According  to
\nlearned senior\tcounsel for  the respondents  therefore\t the
\nHigh  Court   was  right   in  taking  the  view  that\teven
\neducational qualifications of the respondents were almost at
\npar if not better than those of secondary school teachers.\n<\/p>\n
     Having given  our\tanxious consideration to these rival
\ncontentions we find that before a set of employees can claim
\nparity of  pay scales  on the  principle of  `equal Pay\t for
\nEqual Work’  it has  to be  shown  by  such  claimants\tthat
\nqualitatively said  quantitatively the work which they do is
\nof the\tsame type  and nature  as that of their counterparts
\nwhose pay  scales are  pressed in  service for\tgetting\t the
\nparity. Not  only that\tbut even  educational qualifications
\nmust be\t identical. It\tis  well  settled  by  a  series  of
\ndecisions of  this Court  that different  pay scales  can be
\nprescribed  for\t  employees  having   different\t educational
\nqualifications. Consequently  if the  matter had  rested  at
\nthis stage  we would  have been required to closely consider
\nwhether it  was open  to the  High Court  to  undertake\t the
\nexercise of  trying to\tfind out  whether Master’s Degree in
\nsecond division with 50% marks in the relevant subject being
\nthe educational\t qualification for  becoming a\tLecturer  in
\nschool cadre  represented an educational qualification which
\nwas parallel and equivalent to the educational qualification
\npossessed by  a Language  Teacher  in  technical  institutes
\nhaving B.A.  B.Ed. Degree  with the concerned subject as one
\nof the\tteaching subjects  in B.Ed.  and ‘a  Master’s Degree
\nwhich may  be even a Pass Class Master’s Degree. However the
\nsaid exercise  is spared for us for the reasons which we now
\nproceed to unfold.\n<\/p>\n
     On 02  May 1995  a Bench  of two learned Judges of this
\nCourt consisting  of K.\t Ramaswamy and\tB.L. Hansaria,\tJJ.,
\npassed the following order :\n<\/p>\n
     “Learned counsel  for the appellant
\n     is directed  to produce  the record
\n     of the  pay commission  relating to
\n     the fixation  of the  pay scales to
\n     the language  teachers  working  in
\n     Training Institutes  and  Lecturers
\n     in School\tcadre  fixing  1400-2600
\n     and 2000-3500 respectively.
\n     Learned counsel  seeks for\t and  is
\n     granted six  weeks’ time  for doing
\n     the needful.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Despite the  aforesaid order  being passed\t as early as
\n02nd May  1995 the  appellants did  not produce the relevant
\nrequisite material.  That was  noted by\t us when this matter
\nreached for final hearing before us. By our order dated 08th
\nApril 1997, therefore, we passed the following order :\n<\/p>\n
     “I.A. No.4 stands granted.
\n     Respondent Nos.3  and 4  will stand
\n     deleted  from  the\t record\t of  the
\n     case. After  this matter  was heard
\n     for some time we were informed that
\n     the   appellant   State   has   not
\n     complied with  the\t order\tof  this
\n     Court  of\t2nd  May,  1995\t despite
\n     being granted many opportunities to
\n     comply with  the same.  By an order
\n     dated 21st\t March,\t  1996,\t another
\n     Bench   of\t  this\t Court\t granted
\n     further 6\tweeks’\ttime  to  comply
\n     with the  order.  Still  till  date
\n     nothing has  been done.  When  this
\n     was brought  to the  notice of  the
\n     learned counsel  for the appellant,
\n     he prayed\tfor a last ; opportunity
\n     to comply\twith the  order of  this
\n     Court and\trequested for  some more
\n     time. It  is made clear to him that
\n     within this  further time\tif  this
\n     order is  not complied with and the
\n     necessary papers  are not produced,
\n     the appeal will stand dismissed for
\n     non-prosecution. Accordingly  as  a
\n     last  opportunity\tweeks’\ttime  is
\n     granted to\t comply with  the  order
\n     of 2nd  May, 1995\tand  to\t produce
\n     necessary\t information\trequired
\n     thereby. It  is clarified that this
\n     will be  the last\topportunity. The
\n     appeal is adjourned to 29.4.1997 as
\n     part  heard.  It  is  further  made
\n     clear that in case there was no pay
\n     Commission as stated, but any other
\n     body of Experts which went into the
\n     question and  had given any report,
\n     record of\tthe said  report may  be
\n     produce.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  only thereafter  that the\tappellants  filed  a
\nprinted copy  of the  Haryana Civil  Services (Revised\tPay)
\nRules, 1987  framed by\tthe Governor  of State of Haryana in
\nexercise of  his powers\t under the proviso to Article 309 of
\nthe Constitution  of India.  As the  said  response  by\t the
\nappellants did\tnot amount to full compliance with our order
\ndated 08th  April 1997\tin continuation of the earlier order
\nof 02nd\t May  1995  we\tdirected  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants to  produce the  copies of  the report of the Pay
\nCommission or  any other  expert body  whose advice was made
\navailable to  the appellants  when they framed the aforesaid
\nrules. Thereafter  the learned\tcounsel for  the  appellants
\nplaced for  our consideration  Interim\tReport\tof  the\t Pay
\nRevision Committee in respect of Group B, C and D employees.
\nHe submitted  that the\trespondents’ case  is covered by the
\nsaid Report  and it  was that  Report which  was taken\tinto
\nconsideration by  the appellant-State while promulgating the
\naforesaid  Revised   Pay  Rules.  He  also  placed  for\t our
\nconsideration Report  of the  Pay Anomalies Commission which
\nwas required  to consider  the anomalies  in the revision of
\npay scales as granted by the aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He
\nsubmitted that\tin the\tlight  of  the\tReport\tof  the\t Pay
\nAnomalies  Commission  the  pay\t scales\t were  appropriately
\nrevised for  the classes  of employees concerned. He made it
\nclear that  the pay  scales made  available to\tLecturers in
\nsecondary  school   cadre  were\t revised  with\teffect\tfrom
\n1.1.1986 from Rs.550-900\/- to Rs.1640-2900\/- as per the said
\nRevised Pay  Rules while  respondents’ earlier\texisting pay
\nscales were  revised from  Rs.525-1050\/- to  Rs.1400-2600\/-.
\nThe revised  pay scale\tof  Lecturers  in  higher  secondary
\nschools were  further revised  in the light of Pay Anomalies
\nCommission Report  to Rs.2000-3500\/-  from 01st May 1990. In
\nview of\t this material placed before us we have to see as to
\nwhether the  appellants in  their own  discretion created  a
\nsituation in  which the revised pay scales made available to
\nLecturers  in\thigher\tsecondary   schools  should   almost
\nautomatically be  made available  to  Language\tTeachers  in
\ntechnical institutes  teaching standard\t II and\t 12 students
\nwho also  can legitimately  be said  to be  higher secondary
\nschool students\t though\t styled\t as  studying  in  technical
\ninstitutes. When  we turn  to the  interim report of the Pay
\nRevision Committee  we find  that the  said Committee in the
\nlight of  the IVth  Central Pay\t Commission  recommendations
\nundertook the task of suggesting appropriate revision of pay
\nscales of Haryana Government employees by drawing an analogy
\nfrom the revised pay scales suggested for Central Government
\nemployees by  19th Central Pay Commission. In para 10 of the
\nReport the Committee has observed that it has broadly taken,
\namongst others,\t various factors  into\tconsideration  while
\ngiving its  recommendations.  In  para\t10(b)  it  has\tbeen
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “10(b). As\t per the recommendations
\n     of the  Fourth Pay\t Commission  and
\n     the  notification\t issued\t by  the
\n     Government of  India regarding  the
\n     employees of the Central Government
\n     and    the\t   Union    Territories,
\n     different scales  have  been  given
\n     for    posts    with    the    same
\n     designations   in\t  the\t Central
\n     Government\t  and\t various   Union
\n     Territories.  The\t Committee   mas
\n     recommended such  of the  scales in
\n     such categories  as suit  the State
\n     Government employees  best in order
\n     to maintain the existing parities.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In sub-para  (c) of  the said  para  10  the  following
\nobservations are found :\n<\/p>\n
     “10(c).\t   The\t     experience,
\n     qualifications, mode of recruitment
\n     and   job\t  content   etc.   being
\n     different in  the Central and State
\n     Governments,  the\tCommittee  could
\n     not go  into the  details of  these
\n     matters on\t account of  constraints
\n     of time.”\n<\/p>\n
     Thus  it\tappears\t that  the  Expert  Committee  while
\nrecommending  upward  revision\tof  pay\t scales\t of  Haryana
\nGovernment employees had kept in view the revised pay scales
\nmade available to Central Government servants under the IVth
\nPay Commission subject to  certain relevant adjustments.\n<\/p>\n
     In pare  12 of  the said Report, they referred to their
\nfirst option to go simply by the `designations’ of the posts
\nin central Government and recommend same scales to the state
\nGovernment employees. They said :\n<\/p>\n
     ” In  this option,\t the same scales
\n     are  recommended\tfor  the   State
\n     Government employees  as have  been
\n     given by  the Central Government in
\n     such cases\t where the  designations
\n     are  similar   and\t the  posts  are
\n     identical……………….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  [Emphasis supplied]
\nand in\tpara 16, they decided to recommend the first option.
\nRead along  with para  10(c) quoted  above, it is clear that
\nthe Committee  on account  of constraints  of time,  did not
\nthink fit  to go by comparison of experience, qualification,
\nmode of\t recruitment or\t job content  but by the comparative
\ndesignation  and   nature  of  post.  In  other\t words,\t the
\ndistinction based on difference in educational qualification
\nwas not\t to be the basis for the first option recommended by
\nthe Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     When we  turn to  the  annexures  to  the\tsaid  Report
\ncontaining the suggested revision of pay scales of employees
\nconcerned we  find at  Annexure A-2  revised scales of posts
\ncarrying present  scales in  Group `C’\tand `D’ except posts
\nfor which different revised scales are indicated separately.
\nLearned counsel\t for the appellants submitted that at serial
\nno.4 at Annexure A-2 to the said Report are listed employees
\nhaving earlier\tpay scale  of Rs.525-1050\/- as was available
\nto the\trespondents and\t the said  scale was  proposed to be
\nrevised to  Rs.1400-2600\/- and\tit was\tthis  proposed\thike
\nwhich was  accepted by\tthe appellant  authorities for being
\nmade available\tto the\trespondents. It\t is not\t possible to
\nagree with this contention. The reason is obvious. At serial
\nno.4 at\t Annexure  A-2\tto  the\t Report\t is  found  List  of
\nemployees who  were getting  pay scale\tof Rs.525-1050\/- and
\nwho were  proposed to  be given\t a hike\t r of  pay scale  by
\nraising\t it  to\t Rs.1400-2600\/-.  In  that  list  are  found
\nLibrarians, Assistants,\t Draftsman, Statistical\t Assistants,
\nVeterinary  Compounders,   Assistants  (of  Directorates  at
\nHeadquarter) etc.  Respondents obviously  do not  belong  to
\nthat category.\tOn the other hand we find at Annexure `P’ to
\nthe said  Report the  proposals regarding revised pay scales
\nof certain other categories of staff which are common to the
\nState  Government   and\t the   Central\tGovernment.  In\t the
\nEducation Department  at  serial  no.2\tare  listed  Trained
\nGraduate Teachers,  Headmasters\t Primary  Schools  while  at
\nserial no.3  are listed\t Post  Graduate\t Teachers  and\tHead
\nMasters of Middle Schools. Columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to
\nthe posts, pay scales, emoluments as on 1.1.1986 and revised
\nscales given  by Central Government to these employees while
\nat column  nos.6 to  11 are  found the posts under the State
\nGovernment with the existing pay scales, total emoluments as
\non 1.1.1986,  total emoluments\tafter adding  20%  over\t 320
\nConsumer Price Index and the recommended scales. It would be
\nprofitable to reproduce the relevant entries at serial nos.2
\nand 3 for comparative analysis :\n<\/p>\n
     A mere  look at  these entries  shows that\t the Central
\ngovernment Trained Graduate Teachers were given a higher pay
\nscale of  Rs.1400-2600\/- while\tPost Graduate  Teachers\t and
\nHead Masters of Middle Schools were given a higher pay scale
\nof Rs.1640-2900\/-. So far as their counterparts in the State
\nservice\t were  concerned  for  Trained\tGraduates  in  State
\nservice the  existing pay  scale of Rs.525-1050\/- was sought
\nto  be\trevised\t to  Rs.1400-2600\/-  while  so\tfar  as\t the
\nLecturers  in  higher  secondary  schools  who\twere  having
\ndegrees in  Division 1st or 2nd and who were earlier getting
\nRs.600-1100\/ were  sought to  be given a higher pay scale of
\nRs.1640-2900\/-. The  `Remarks’ column against serial no.3 is
\nmore instructive.  It says  that the  Commission recommended
\nthat Lecturers be treated at par with Post Graduate Teachers
\nof Central  Government. It  becomes, therefore, obvious that
\neven though earlier in the State service Lecturers in higher
\nsecondary schools  who were  having first  or  second  class
\ndegrees like  M.A. 1st Class or 2nd Class were having higher
\npay scale  of Rs.600-1100\/-  as compared to Trained Graduate
\nTeachers who  were having lesser pay scale of Rs.525-1050\/-,
\nthey were  now sought  to be  treated at  par in so far as a
\nuniform revised\t pay scale  of Rs.1640-2900\/-  was suggested
\nfor all\t of  them.  Thus  so  far  as  Lecturers  in  higher
\nsecondary schools were concerned, earlier distinction in the
\npay scales  on the  basis of  first  or\t second\t class\tPost
\nGraduate Degrees  was sought  to be done away with and these
\nLecturers were\tto be  treated at  par\twith  Post  Graduate
\nTeachers of  Central Government. When we turn to column 2 of
\nEntry 3\t we find that under Central Government Post Graduate
\nTeachers were  all given   uniform  hike  in  pay  scale  of
\nRs.1640-2900\/- meaning\tthereby the distinction between Post
\nGraduate Teachers  having 2nd class or 1st class M.A. Degree
\nand those having a Pass Class Post Graduate Degree was given
\na go  by and  it is this uniform hike in pay scale which was
\nrecommended for\t acceptance of\tthe State  Government by the
\nPay Revision  Committee. It  is of course true, as submitted
\nby   learned\tcounsel\t  for\t appellants,   that    these
\nrecommendations were  not necessarily  binding on the  State
\nauthorities and\t it was\t open to them to suitably modify the
\npay scale  which could\tbe revised for\tdifferent categories
\nof employees  on their\tdiscretion. Even  though that  is so
\nWhen we\t turn to  the Revised  Pay  Rules themselves we find
\nthat the  appellants in their own discretion and wisdom have
\naccepted the  aforesaid\t recommendations of the Pay Revision
\nCommittee and have done away with the difference between the
\npay scales  of 1st  Class or  2nd Class Post Graduate Degree
\nholder Lecturers  in higher  secondary schools\tand the Pass
\nClass  Post  Graduate  Degree  holder  Lecturers  in  higher
\nsecondary schools  wherever they may be working and teaching
\nstandard 11  and 12 students. It has to be kept in view that
\nboth these classes of teachers have a common employer, State
\nof Haryana.  Respondents may be working as Teachers teaching
\nhigher secondary  students of  Class 11\t and 12 in technical
\ninstitutes  while  their  counterparts\twho  are  styled  as
\nLecturers may  be teaching  similar  class  of\tstudents  in
\nstandard 11  and 12  in higher\tsecondary schools.  Both  of
\nthem, therefore,  must be  treated to  be on par and were in
\nfact treated to be on par by the appellants themselves while
\npromulgating the  Revised Pay  Rules and making available to
\nthem revised pay scales as will be seen presently.\n<\/p>\n
     When we  turn to the relevant rules we find that Rule 4
\nstates that as from the date of commencement of these rules,
\nthe scales of pay of every post specified in column 2 of the
\nFirst schedule\tshall be as specified against it in column 4
\nthereof. In  the First\tSchedule  at  Part  ‘A’\t are  listed
\nrevised scales\tfor posts  carrying present scales in Groups
\n‘D’, ‘C’,  ‘B’ and  ‘A’ except\tposts  for  which  different
\nrevised scales were notified separately. Learned counsel for
\nthe appellants\trelied upon  serial no.6  dealing  with\t all
\nposts carrying\tpresent scale specified in Column 3 and took
\nus to  Column 3\t which mentioned Rs. 525-1050\/- dealing with
\nGroups\t‘C’   and  ‘B’.\t It  is\t not  in  dispute  that\t the
\nrespondents fall  within that  group Revised  pay scale made
\navailable to  them as  per these  Rules from 1.1.1986 was Rs
\n1400-2600 But  the respondents\tcontend\t that  these  scales
\nwould not  be applicable  to them as they will be covered by
\nPart ‘B’  dealing with\t‘Revised scales\t of pay\t for certain
\nother categories  of  staff’.  Learned\tsenior\tcounsel\t for
\nrespondents invited  our attention  to Education  Department
\nand-under  that\t  caption  are\t found\tat   serial   no   2
\nMaster\/Mistress, Trained Graduates, Shastri\/Sanskrit teacher
\nD.P.E. whose pay scale from Rs 525-1050\/- was revised to Rs.
\n1400-2600\/-. But  at serial  no 3  are Listed  Lecturers  in
\nhigher secondary  schools whose\t revised pay scale was shown
\nas Rs  1640-2900\/-. Once  the respondents  are found  to  be
\nteaching in higher secondary school they would obviously not
\nfall in\t serial no  2 dealing with ‘Master\/Mistress, Trained
\nGraduates, Shastri\/Sanskrit  Teacher D.P.E. They fall within
\nthe category  of Lecturers in higher secondary schools. They
\nwould obviously,  therefore, become entitled to uniform time
\nscale of  Rs. 1640-2900\/-.  It is  pertinent to note that in
\nthese Revised Pay Rules lesser revised pay scale is not made
\navailable to  Pass class  Post Graduate Teachers as compared
\nto 1st\tand 2nd\t Class\tPost  Graduate\tTeachers  in  higher
\nsecondary schools.  To that  extent it must be held that the
\nrecommendations of  the Pay  Revision Committee for treating
\nall Post  Graduate Lecturers  in higher secondary schools at
\npar for the purpose of revised pay scales with Post Graduate
\nTeachers of  Central Government and to make them available a
\nuniform pay  scale of  Rs.1640-2900\/- appear  to  have\tbeen
\nwholly accepted.  For grant  of such  a uniform\t revised pay
\nscale the  earlier distinction\tbetween a  Pass\t Class\tPost
\nGraduate teacher  and a\t second class  or first\t class\tPost
\nGraduate degree\t holder teacher\t was totally  effaced by the
\nappellants  themselves.\t On  this  short  ground  alone\t the
\nrespondents are\t entitled to succeed. They would be entitled
\nto get the uniform pay scale made available to Post Graduate
\nteachers in  higher secondary schools as revised to Rs.1640-
\n2900\/-\tunder\tthe  Revised  Pay  Rules  with\teffect\tfrom
\n1.1.1986. It  is not  in dispute that the said pay scale was
\nfurther revised\t on the\t recommendations  of  Pay  Anomalies
\nCommission  to\tRs.2000-3500\/-\tfrom  Rs.  1640-2900\/-\twith
\neffect from  1st May  1990. A feeble attempt made by learned
\ncounsel for the appellants for submitting that these revised
\npay scales were available only to those Post Graduate Higher
\nSecondary  School   Teachers   who   were   entrusted\twith
\nadministrative duties, cannot be countenanced for the simple
\nreason that  such a   distinction  was never  canvassed\t for
\nconsideration by  the appellant before the High Court at any
\nstage. Their  only ground  for defeating  the claim  of\t the
\nrespondents  was   that\t they  were  teaching  in  technical
\ninstitutes while  the  Post  Graduate  Lecturers  in  higher
\nsecondary schools  were teaching in higher secondary schools
\nand  were   having  different\ttypes\tof   Post   Graduate
\nqualifications. It  was submitted  by learned senior counsel
\nfor the\t respondents that  all the  higher secondary  school
\nteachers  having   Post\t Graduate  qualifications  who\twere
\nadmittedly granted  the pay  scale of  Rs.1640-2900\/- by the
\nappellants  with   effect  from\t 1.1.1986  got\tthe  further
\nrevision of  pay scale\tto Rs.2000-3500\/- from 01st May 1990
\nin the\tlight of  Pay Anomalies\t Commission Report which was
\naccepted and  no distinction  was made\ton the ground of any
\nhigher\t administrative\t   duties   and,   therefore,\tthis
\ndistinction sought  to be  raised by learned counsel for the
\nappellants at  this belated stage should not be accepted. We
\nfind considerable force in this contention as the appellants
\nhave not  even whispered  on this  aspect at  any  time\t all
\nthroughout before  the High  court and even in their Special
\nLeave Petition in these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  also to  keep in\tview the salient features of
\nthis case which have remained well established on record and
\nwhich have  been heavily  relied upon  both by\tthe  learned
\nSingle Judge  and by  the Division  Bench of the High Court.
\nThey can be catalogued as under :\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t  The respondents  are\tLanguage
\n\t  Teachers, namely,  they  teach
\n\t  Hindi and  English to standard
\n\t  11 and  12 students  who study
\n\t  in higher  secondary\tclasses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  They\t however   teach   these
\n\t  students     in      technical
\n\t  institutes. But these students
\n\t  join\tthese  institutes  after
\n\t  passing      standard\t      10
\n\t  examination.\t\t   Their
\n\t  counterparts\t   also\t    join
\n\t  standard    11    in\t  higher
\n\t  secondary    schools\t   after
\n\t  passing the  same  examination
\n\t  of standard 10.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  The respondents teach the same
\n\t  syllabus of  Hindi and English
\n\t  to standard 11 and 12 students
\n\t  who appear at the same type of
\n\t  examination and write the same
\n\t  papers as  are written  by the
\n\t  standard 10  and  11\tstudents
\n\t  who  are   taught  Hindi   and
\n\t  English  in  higher  secondary
\n\t  schools.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  Whether  a   teacher\t teaches
\n\t  Hindi and English languages to
\n\t  standard 11 and 12 students in
\n\t  a technical  institute or in a
\n\t  higher secondary  school makes
\n\t  no difference in the nature of
\n\t  duties and functions performed
\n\t  by these two sets of teachers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  Whether separate  institutions
\n\t  under which they work maintain
\n\t  a different  set of  seniority
\n\t  lists\t or   not  would   be  a
\n\t  totally\t      irrelevant
\n\t  consideration for deciding the
\n\t  question in controversy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  The students\tof  standard  11
\n\t  and 12  who are  taught  Hindi
\n\t  and English by the respondents
\n\t  are  examined\t  in  the   same
\n\t  subjects    by     the    same
\n\t  institution,\tnamely,\t Haryana
\n\t  School education  Board  which
\n\t  sets same  type of examination
\n\t  papers on  the basis\tof  same
\n\t  syllabus,  to\t  the\tstudents
\n\t  taught by  the respondents  as
\n\t  well as  to the  students  who
\n\t  are\ttaught\t  by\tLanguage
\n\t  Teachers   attached\tto   the
\n\t  regular    higher    secondary
\n\t  schools   who\t   also\t   teach
\n\t  standard 11  and  12\tstudents
\n\t  the\tvery\tsame   Languages
\n\t  English and Hindi based on the
\n\t  same syllabus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  The students who are taught by
\n\t  respondents\tand   pass   out
\n\t  standard 12  examination  will
\n\t  get the  certificate\tof  10+2
\n\t  examination on  the same lines
\n\t  as students  who pass standard
\n\t  10+2 examination  from  higher
\n\t  secondary    schools.\t   These
\n\t  certificates\t  obtained    by
\n\t  vocational\t       education
\n\t  institutes\tstudents     are
\n\t  exactly  at\tpar   with   the
\n\t  certificates\t   issued     on
\n\t  completion\tof    successful
\n\t  passing   of\t  standard    12
\n\t  examination\t  by\t general
\n\t  education students  coming out
\n\t  of higher secondary schools.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  Both these  sets  of\tstudents
\n\t  are eligible\tto get admission
\n\t  in B.A.,  B.Com. etc.\t and  to
\n\t  pursue   higher   studies   in
\n\t  colleges.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     These aspects  deal with the quality of work. So far as
\nthe quantity  of work  is concerned  it is  well established
\nthat in\t school cadre  in Education  Department\t a  Lecturer
\nteaches 30  periods in\ta week, one period is of 40 minutes’
\nduration, i.e.,\t 20 hours  in a\t week whereas  the  Language
\nTeachers  like\t the  respondents   teaching  in   technical
\ninstitutes teach for 24 hours in a week, one period being of
\none hour’s  duration, i.e.,  24 hours  in a  week. Thus even
\nquantitatively the  work which\tthe respondents\t do is\tmore
\nintensive as  compared to the work done by their counterpart
\nteachers in higher secondary schools. That the difference in
\nthe nomenclature  between the two sets of employees, namely,
\nLanguage  Teachers   like  the\t respondents  in   technical
\ninstitutes and\tLecturers in  higher secondary\tschools does
\nnot represent  any substantial\tcleavage in the quantity and
\nquality of work done by both these sets of employees.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  light of  these salient features which are well
\nestablished on\trecord there  would be\tno escape  from\t the
\nconclusion that\t but for  the  difference  in\t educational
\nqualifications both  these sets\t of employees  are similarly
\ncircumscribed. So  far\tas  the\t educational  qualifications
\ndifference is  concerned that  would have,  as noted  above,
\nmade some  vital  difference  but  for\tthe  fact  that\t the
\nappellants themselves  in their own wisdom thought it fit to
\nignore this  difference in the educational qualifications by
\noffering a uniform time\t scale of Rs.1640-5900\/- to all Post
\nGraduate Lecturers  a in  higher secondary  schools. For all
\nthese reasons no  can be found with the decision rendered by
\nthe  High   Court  especially\tin  the\t  light\t of   latter
\ndevelopments at\t the end  of the  appellants themselves\t who
\ntreated all  these  teachers  at  par  by  promulgating\t the
\nRevised Pay Rules in the light of the recommendations of the
\nPay Revision  Committee as  well as Pay Anomalies Commission
\nas noted in details by us earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     Now is  the time  for us to refer to a few decisions of
\nthis Court  to which  our attention,  was invited by learned
\ncounsel for  the appellants.  In the case of State of Madhya
\nPradesh &  Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors.<\/a> (1993) 1 SCC 539 a
\nBachelor of  three learned  Judges of  this  Court  speaking
\nthrough B.P.  Jeevan Reddy,  J. held  that in the absence of
\nany  clear   allegation\t and\/or\t  material  suggesting\tthat
\nfunctions and  responsibilities of  both the  categories  of
\nlecturers are  similar, they  cannot  claim  parity  of\t pay
\nscales.\t It  is\t obvious  that\tthe  aforesaid\tdecision  it
\nrendered on  the peculiar  facts of that case. In para 12 of
\nthe  Report   this  aspect   is\t highlighted.  The  relevant
\nobservations are found in the said para as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “The material  abovenmentioned goes
\n     to show that (a) the qualifications
\n     prescribed for the lecturers in the
\n     Higher Secondary School and the non
\n     technical\tlecturers  in  Technical
\n     schools are  the same;  (b) service
\n     conditions of  both the  categories
\n     of lecturers  are same and (c) that
\n     the status\t of the\t schools is also
\n     the  same.\t There\tis,  however,  a
\n     conspicuous absence  of  any  clear
\n     allegation\t    and\/or\tmaterial
\n     suggesting\t  that\t functions   and
\n     responsibilities\tof    both   the
\n     categories\t  of\tlecturers    are
\n     similar. Much  less  is  there  any
\n     allegation\t   or\t  proof\t    that
\n     qualitatively    speaking,\t    they
\n     perform similar  functions.  It  is
\n     not  enough   to\tsay   that   the
\n     qualifications are\t same nor  is it
\n     enough to\tsay that the schools are
\n     of the  same status. lt is also not
\n     sufficient to  say that the service
\n     conditions of similar. What is more
\n     important and  crucial  is\t whether
\n     they  discharge   similar\t duties,
\n     functions and  responsibilities. On
\n     this score\t there is  a  noticeable
\n     absence  of  material.  Whether  we
\n     look at  the averments  in, and the
\n     material produced\talong with,  the
\n     original\tpetition   or\tto   the
\n     averments in the counter- affidavit
\n     or even  to the  averments\t in  the
\n     counter  affidavit\t  filed\t by  the
\n     Government in  M.P. No.2277 of 1985
\n     upon  which  the  counsel\tfor  the
\n     respondents   has\t placed\t  strong
\n     reliance), we do not find any clear
\n     material to  show that  the duties,
\n     functions and  responsibilities  of
\n     both the  categories  of  lecturers
\n     are identical similar.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It becomes\t at once  obvious that\tthis Court,  in\t the
\nabsence of  material showing  equal quality  ant quantity of
\nwork which  was being  carried out  by Lecturers  in  higher
\nsecondary schools  and non-technical  Lecturers in technical
\ninstitutes in  that case,  came to  the conclusion that both
\nthese groups  of employees  could not  claim  identical\t pay
\nscales. As  discussed earlier there is ample material on the
\nother hand  in the  present case.  Our\tattention  was\talso
\ninvited to  a decision of this court in the case of Rajendra
\nPrasad Mathur  etc. etc.  v. Karnataka University & Anr etc.
\netc. AIR  1986 SC  1448 for  submitting that fixation of pay
\nscales is  the function\t of an\tExpert Body  and  the  Court
\nshould not  interfere with  the same.  There cannot  be\t any
\ndispute on  this aspect.  But as  we have  seen earlier\t the
\nappellants  themselves\tin  their  discretion  accepted\t the
\nadvance and  recommendations of the Expert Body, namely, Pay
\nRevision Committee and offered uniform revised pay scales to
\nall the\t Post Graduate Teachers teaching in higher secondary
\nschools. Learned counsel for the appellants also invited our
\nattention to the following judgments,\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t  Federation   of    All   India
\n     Customs\tand    Central\t  Excise
\n     Stenographers   (Recognised)    and
\n     others v.\tUnion of  India\t &  Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
     (1988) 3 SCC 91\n<\/p>\n
     2.\t  Harbans  Lal\t and  others  v.\n<\/p>\n
     State of Himachal Pradesh &  (1989)
\n     4 SCC 459
\nfor submitting\tthat `Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is a concept
\nwhich requires\tfor its applicability complete and wholesale
\nidentity between a group of employees claiming identical pay
\nscales and  the other  group of\t employees who\thave already
\nearned such  pay scales.  In  the  light  of  what  we\thave
\ndiscussed earlier  the ratio  of the  aforesaid decisions do
\nnot get attracted on the peculiar facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result this  appeal  fails\t and  is  dismissed.
\nInterim stay  granted by  this Court  on 20th  February 1995
\nshall stand  vacated. The  appellants will  have now to make
\ngood to\t the respondents  arrears of  pay in the revised pay
\nscale of  Rs.2000-3500\/- as claimed by them with effect from
\nthe date  of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court,  that is,  from 15th  July\t1992,  though  their
\nearlier pay scales will stand nationally revised to Rs.1640-
\n2900\/- from  1.1.1986 and  to Rs.2000-3500\/-  from 01st\t May
\n1990 and  their increments  in the said pay scales will have
\nto be worked out accordingly and their present pay will have
\nto be  re-fixed accordingly.  Only the\tactual arrears\twill
\nhave to\t be made  available to\tthem in the said revised pay
\nscales from  15th July 1992 as ordered by the learned Single
\nJudge end  which part  of the  order has  become  final\t qua
\nrespondents as seen earlier. The aforesaid exercise shall be
\ncarried out  by the appellants and all the monetary benefits
\nshall be  made available respondents within a period of four
\nmonths from  the date  of receipt of a copy of this order at
\nthe end of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of
\nthe case there will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 Author: S Majmudar Bench: S. B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM CHANDER & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/1997 BENCH: S. B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\"},\"wordCount\":6048,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997","datePublished":"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997"},"wordCount":6048,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997","name":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T06:16:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-anr-vs-ram-chander-anr-on-9-may-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ram Chander & Anr on 9 May, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}