{"id":52292,"date":"1999-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999"},"modified":"2016-11-09T18:45:00","modified_gmt":"2016-11-09T13:15:00","slug":"the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.Srinivasan<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nM.Jagannadha Rao, M.Srinivasan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      I.   Factual canvas The earliest appeal in this  Batchwas filed by the State of Haryana and The Director of Public<br \/>\nInstructions,  Haryana.\t The appeal came to be filed in this<br \/>\nCourt  in somewhat peculiar circumstances.  The order of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court against which the appeal was filed was passed by<br \/>\na  Single  Judge of the High Court on 3rd December, 1988  in<br \/>\nC.W.P.\t 7122\/88 on the basis of consent of counsel on\tboth<br \/>\nsides.\t The  order  was  in the  following  terms  :\tThe<br \/>\nparties\t counsel  agree\t that  this  petition  is  squarely<br \/>\ncovered\t by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported  as<br \/>\nBhagwan\t Dutt  Sharma and others Vs.  State of\tHaryana\t and<br \/>\nanother I.L.R.\t1988, Vol.  II Punjab 246.  There will be an<br \/>\norder in terms of the ratio given in that case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.  The said writ petition was filed in the High Court<br \/>\nby  the\t respondents  in the appeal.  They were\t working  as<br \/>\nTeachers\/   Masters\/Mistresses\tin   different\tschools\t  of<br \/>\nHaryana.   They\t had acquired post  graduate  qualifications<br \/>\nwhile  in  service.  The relevant particulars were given  by<br \/>\nthem in the Writ Petition.  According to them, the erstwhile<br \/>\nState  of  Punjab had issued a Circular on 23rd\t July,\t1957<br \/>\nraising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f.  1st May, 1957<br \/>\nand  that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled<br \/>\nto  pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them<br \/>\nirrespective  of  the post held by them.  It was their\tcase<br \/>\nthat  the  policy  decision  of the  Punjab  Government\t was<br \/>\nadopted\t by the Haryana Government after it was formed.\t The<br \/>\nlatter\tissued\tan order directing further revision  of\t the<br \/>\nscales\tof pay of teachers working in Government schools  in<br \/>\n1968.\tReliance  was placed by the writ petitioners on\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations\t  contained  in\t the   report\tof   Kothari<br \/>\nCommission  which has been accepted by the Government.\t The<br \/>\nwrit  petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court  in<br \/>\nChaman\tLals and Others Vs.  State of Haryana 1987 (3)\tSCC<br \/>\n113  and stated that they were entitled to higher scales  of<br \/>\npay   applicable  to  lecturers\t on   the  basis  of   their<br \/>\nqualifications\tas  they  had become  post  graduates.\t The<br \/>\nprayer\tin  the\t Writ  Petition was for\t issue\tof  writ  of<br \/>\nmandamus  directing the respondents therein to grant  higher<br \/>\npay  scales to the petitioners in accordance with  Annexures<br \/>\nP-1  and  P-2  to the writ petition on the basis  of  higher<br \/>\nqualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court<br \/>\nin  Chaman Lals Case and also for release of  consequential<br \/>\nbenefits  i.e.\tfixation of pay, arrears etc.  alongwith 12%<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.  The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in<br \/>\nthe  appeal.  When it was taken up for hearing, the  counsel<br \/>\non  both  sides\t agreed that the matter was covered  by\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of a Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan\tDutt<br \/>\nSharmas\t Case I.L.R.  1988 Vol.\t II Punjab 248.\t Hence\tthe<br \/>\nHigh Court passed the order as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.   Thereafter  the  first  petitioner  in  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition  filed\t a  petition  for  contempt  to\t punish\t the<br \/>\nappellants in the appeal for not paying the writ petitioners<br \/>\nas  per\t the  pay scale applicable to lecturers.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  issued  notice on the application for  contempt.\t  On<br \/>\nreceipt\t of such notice, the Government and The Director  of<br \/>\nPublic\tInstructions  thought  fit to file  a  petition\t for<br \/>\nSpecial\t Leave\tin this Court along with an application\t for<br \/>\ncondonation   of   delay  in   presentation  of\t the   same.<br \/>\nObviously,  the\t Government  assumed that because  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  had  issued  notice in the proceedings  of  contempt,<br \/>\norders\twould be passed against it in those proceedings\t and<br \/>\ninstead of contesting the same, the Government presented the<br \/>\npetition  for  Special Leave in this Court.  The  delay\t was<br \/>\n     condoned by order dated 17th August, 1990 and leave was<br \/>\ngranted.   In the :  application for stay, this Court passed<br \/>\nthe  following order After hearing both counsel, we are\t of<br \/>\nthe opinion that there should be no stay of the High Courts<br \/>\norders\tso far as this petition is concerned.  If,  however,<br \/>\nthe  State  ultimately\tsucceeds , it will  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\nappropriate relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.   Though,  this Court refused to grant stay, it  is<br \/>\nadmitted  before  us  by  counsel on  both  sides  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  in\tthe contempt petition is the only person  to<br \/>\nwhom  higher pay on the scale of pay applicable to lecturers<br \/>\nwas  being  paid and to all other persons, salary  was\tpaid<br \/>\nonly  on  the  pay  scale  applicable  to  masters  and\t not<br \/>\nlecturers.   6.\t  The  contention of the Government  in\t the<br \/>\nappeal\tis  that  before the High Court,  counsel  had\tonly<br \/>\nadmitted that the matter was governed by the judgment of the<br \/>\nFull  Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas  Case<br \/>\nand  the  said judgment did not hold that the teachers\twere<br \/>\nentitled  to  get  higher pay on pay  scales  applicable  to<br \/>\nlecturers .  Learned counsel submitted that the judgment had<br \/>\nonly  decided  that the petitioners in the case\t before\t the<br \/>\nFull  Bench were entitled to masters pay from the date they<br \/>\nacquired  the  higher qualifications.  According to  learned<br \/>\ncounsel,  the  judgment\t of  the Full  Bench  can  never  be<br \/>\nunderstood  to\thold  that teachers who\t had  acquired\tpost<br \/>\ngraduate  qualifications were entitled to the scales of\t pay<br \/>\napplicable  to\tlecturers.  7.\tPer contra, learned  counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the writ petitioners\/respondents in the appeal<br \/>\ncontended  that\t the last sentence in the order of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  made it clear that the order in the writ petition was<br \/>\nin  terms of the ratio given in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas  Case.<br \/>\nAccording  to learned counsel for the writ petitioners,\t the<br \/>\nratio  in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas Case was that the pay of the<br \/>\nteachers  was linked to their qualifications.  It was argued<br \/>\nthat  the principle of pay being linked to qualification  as<br \/>\nrecommended in Kothari Commission report was accepted by the<br \/>\nGovernment  and\t implemented  in   the\tCircular  dated\t 5th<br \/>\nJanuary,  1968.\t Hence, the writ petitioners were, according<br \/>\nto  him,  entitled  to higher scales of\t pay  applicable  to<br \/>\nlecturers  as they had acquired postgraduate  qualifications<br \/>\nwhich were the qualifications prescribed for lecturers.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.   Our attention was drawn by counsel on both  sides<br \/>\nto the Government Circulars issued from time to time as well<br \/>\nas  Rules  which  governed the education  service  in  1957.<br \/>\nCounsel\t on  both  sides  referred   in\t detail\t to  various<br \/>\njudgments of this Court considering the Government Circulars<br \/>\nand  the Rules.\t 9.  Subsequent to the judgment in CWP\t7122<br \/>\nof  1988,  the High Court had occasion to consider the\tsame<br \/>\nquestion  in several other writ petitions filed by similarly<br \/>\nplaced\tteachers.   By a detailed judgment dated  5th  June,<br \/>\n1990  in Bachan Lal Lahori Vs.\tState of Haryana in CWP\t 770<br \/>\nof  1989, the High Court negatived the claim of the teachers<br \/>\nthat  they  were  entitled to the pay scales  applicable  to<br \/>\nlecturers.   That judgment was rendered in a batch of  cases<br \/>\nand  S.L.P.   1005-06  of 1998 have been filed\tagainst\t the<br \/>\norder in CWP 374 of 1989 and 1039 of 1989 which were in that<br \/>\nbatch.\tIt appears that no appeal has been preferred against<br \/>\nthe  judgment of the High court in Bachan Lal Case.  10.  In<br \/>\nCWP  6045 of 1989, the High Court passed an order on 11\/7\/91<br \/>\nfollowing the ruling in Bachan Lals Case and dismissing the<br \/>\nwrit  petition\tagainst which SL.P.  1002 of 1998  has\tbeen<br \/>\nfiled.\tAgainst similar judgment dated 15th October, 1993 in<br \/>\nCWP  1119  of 1989 and 11394 of 1988, S.L.P Nos.  100 80  of<br \/>\n1995  and  1000 of 1998 have been filed.  11.  On  2.8.1995,<br \/>\nthe  High Court passed a detailed order in CWP 6478 of\t1995<br \/>\n(Tilak\tRaj  Gupta  and\t Others\t  Vs.\tState  of   Haryana)<br \/>\nreiterating the order in Bachan Lals Case.  S.L.P.  1003-04<br \/>\nof  1998  have been filed against the said judgment and\t the<br \/>\njudgment in CWP 6477 of 1995.  Another judgment was rendered<br \/>\non  30th  February, 1997 in CWP 17192 of 1996 following\t the<br \/>\njudgment  in  Tilak Raj Guptas Case.  Against  that,  Civil<br \/>\nAppeal\tNo.  2104 of 1998 has been preferred.  12.  Just  as<br \/>\nthe  first  petitioner in CWP 7122 of 1988 filed a  petition<br \/>\nfor punishing the Government and the officials for contempt,<br \/>\nseveral other teachers also filed applications for punishing<br \/>\nthe  Government and the officials for contempt.\t Some of the<br \/>\nteachers  filed\t proceedings for execution of the orders  in<br \/>\nthe  writ petitions.  The proceedings in contempt were\talso<br \/>\ntreated as execution proceedings.  All such proceedings were<br \/>\ndismissed  by orders dated 21st May, 1997.  Against the said<br \/>\norders,\t the aggrieved teachers have filed S.L.P.  944-51 of<br \/>\n1998  and  S.L.P.   No.1008-1011 of 1998.  As  the  question<br \/>\ninvolved  in  all these proceedings is the same,  they\twere<br \/>\nheard together.\t II Common Question 13.\t The common question<br \/>\nwhich  arises  for decision in all these matters is  whether<br \/>\nthe teachers\/masters\/mistresses working in different schools<br \/>\nin  the\t State of Haryana are automatically entitled to\t the<br \/>\nhigher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on and from the<br \/>\ndate  of  their acquiring the academic qualifications  (Post<br \/>\nGraduation)  prescribed\t for the post of  Lecturer.   Some<br \/>\nteachers are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4304\/98 filed by<br \/>\nthe  State  of Haryana while several groups of teachers\t are<br \/>\npetitioners  in\t SLPs  referred to above and  appellants  in<br \/>\nCivil  Appeal  No.2104\/98.  It is better that in  the  first<br \/>\ninstance  we  advert to the relevant rules and circulars  in<br \/>\norder  to  answer the question raised.\tIII  Service  Rules,<br \/>\nGovernment Circulars and Policy Letters<\/p>\n<p>      14.   Before the formation of the State of Haryana  in<br \/>\n1966,  the position of the teachers in the schools in Punjab<br \/>\nwas  governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class\tIII,<br \/>\nSchool Cadre Rules,1955.  They were framed under Article 309<br \/>\nof the Constitution of India by the Governor of Punjab.\t The<br \/>\nexpression   `Service  was  defined  to\t mean  the   Punjab<br \/>\nEducational Service, Class III &#8211; School Cadre.\tRule 10 read<br \/>\nthat members of the service would be entitled to such scales<br \/>\nof  pay as may be authorized by the Government from time  to<br \/>\ntime  and  the scales of pay then in force as  specified  in<br \/>\nAppendix  A  against each post.\t Appendix A set out  the<br \/>\nnumber\tof sanctioned posts (permanent and temporary), scale<br \/>\nof pay and the designation of posts.  The column setting out<br \/>\nthe  designation of the post referred only to  Head-masters,<br \/>\nMasters,  Science  Masters, Agricultural  Masters,  Language<br \/>\nteachers,  Art\t&amp;  Craft teachers in the  Mens\tBranch\tand<br \/>\nsimilarly  Head Mistress, Mistresses, Language teachers etc.<br \/>\nin the Womens Branch.  What is to be noted is that Appendix<br \/>\n1963-64,  did not refer to any post designated as le cturer.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.   It  is  not  in dispute that for\tthe  first  time  in<br \/>\n1963-64,  the  posts of lecturers in the school\t cadre\twere<br \/>\ncreated\t when  Higher Secondary schools were  established  .<br \/>\nBefore that, there were only three types of schools, namely,<br \/>\nprimary\t upto  4th  class, middle upto 8th  class  and\tHigh<br \/>\nSchool\tupto  10th  class.   When  the\tcategory  of  Higher<br \/>\nSecondary  schools upto 11th class was introduced, the posts<br \/>\nof  lecturers were also created.  The scales of pay for\t the<br \/>\nposts of lecturers and the qualifications prescribed for the<br \/>\nsame  were fixed by Executive instructions as they were\t not<br \/>\ngoverned by the Punjab Educational Service Rules referred to<br \/>\nabove.\t Till  1.2.1983\t there were two scales\tof  pay\t for<br \/>\nlecturers  &#8211;  one  being  lower for  those  who\t had  passed<br \/>\nM.A.\/M.Sc  in  3rd Division and the other being\t higher\t for<br \/>\nthose who had passed M.A.\/M.Sc in 1st and 2nd Division.\t The<br \/>\ntwo  scales  were  later revised from 1.2.1983 when  it\t was<br \/>\ndecided\t that only persons with M.A.\/M.Sc\/M.Com.  in 1st  or<br \/>\n2nd  Division would be appointed as Lecturers.\tWith  effect<br \/>\nfrom 19.3.1985 it was further decided that only persons with<br \/>\nat  least 50% marks in M.A.\/M.Sc\/M.Com.\t would be  appointed<br \/>\nas  Lecturers.\t That is evident from a copy of\t the  letter<br \/>\nNo.15\/38-05-E-43  dated\t 1.5.85\t issued by the\tDirector  of<br \/>\nSecondary  Education,  Haryana to all Sub-divisions  in\t the<br \/>\nState.\t (vide\tPage  69  in  Vol.   II\t in  C.A.   4304\/90)<br \/>\nSubsequently,  in 1998, the Governor of Haryana framed rules<br \/>\nunder  Article\t309  of the Constitution known\tas  Haryana<br \/>\nState  Education  Lecturer  School Cadre  (Group-C)  Service<br \/>\nRules  1998  regulating\t the recruitment and  conditions  of<br \/>\nservice\t of  persons appointed to the Haryana  State  School<br \/>\nEducation  Lecturers School Cadre.  Thus it is seen that the<br \/>\npost   of  Lecturer  was  never\t  governed  by\tthe   Punjab<br \/>\nEducational  Service  Class III School Cadre Rules  and\t was<br \/>\nalways\tgoverned  by  a separate set of\t rules.\t  As  stated<br \/>\nearlier,  Appendix  A  to the Punjab  Educational  Service<br \/>\nClass  III  School Cadre Rules did not include the  post  of<br \/>\nLecturer at any time.  16.  Strong reliance is placed by the<br \/>\nteachers  upon\tthe  letter dated 23.7.1957  issued  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  of\tPunjab before State  Re-organization.\tThat<br \/>\nletter\twas  issued by the Government after considering\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations made by the Pay Revision Committee appointed<br \/>\nto  examine the revision of scales of pay of the subordinate<br \/>\nservices   and\tremoval\t of   anomalies\t occasioned  by\t the<br \/>\npiecemeal  revision  of scales of pay of certain classes  of<br \/>\nthe non-gazetted Government servants.  According to the said<br \/>\nletter it was decided that existing scales of pay of certain<br \/>\ncategories  of posts should with effect from 1st May 1957 be<br \/>\nrevised\t as shown in the statement enclosed.  Paragraph 3 of<br \/>\nthe   letter   pertained  to   teachers\t in  the   Education<br \/>\nDepartment.   17.   The\t relevant part of the  letter  reads<br \/>\nthus:\tIt has been decided that all teachers according\t to<br \/>\ntheir  qualifications should be placed in the following\t two<br \/>\nbroad categories:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Category `A<\/p>\n<p>      B.A.\/B.Sc.\/B.Com\/B.Sc.  (Agriculture) and B.T.\/Diploma<br \/>\nin Physical Education\/Diploma in Senior Basic Training.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Category `B<\/p>\n<p>      Group I Matrics with ASIC training (including J.S.Ts).\n<\/p>\n<p>      Group  II J.S.Ts (including Assistant Mistresses\twith<br \/>\nB.A.  inter Matric Plus J.A.V.\tTraining.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Group III (I) Shastries:\n<\/p>\n<p>      (ii)  Gianis, Prabhakar, Drawing Masters and Craftsman<br \/>\nCertificate Holders<\/p>\n<p>      (iii) Munshi Fazils<\/p>\n<p>      (iv)  S.Ts  including S.Vs with training\tin  Physical<br \/>\nEducation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Group  IV:  Untrained teachers with qualification like<br \/>\nB.Coms, B.  Sc.\t (Agriculture) etc.<\/p>\n<p>\t    categories\tof  In addition\t there\tare  similar<br \/>\nspecial\t posts, such as Headmasters\/Headmistresses  schools,<br \/>\nwith District Inspectors\/Inspectoresses of qualifications of<br \/>\ncategory `A above.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Teachers\tin  these categories, regardless of men\t and<br \/>\nwomen cadres, should carry the following scale of pay:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Category\t`A  Rs.110-8-190\/10-250, with higher  start<br \/>\nfor M.A.  or M.Sc as at present.  The existing percentage of<br \/>\nposts\t fixed\t by   Government     for   the\t scale\t  of<br \/>\nRs.110-8-190-10-250   and   Rs.250-10-300    should   remain<br \/>\nunchanged at 85% and 15% respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Category `B LowerRs.60-4-80-5-120<\/p>\n<p>      Middle Rs.120-5-175<\/p>\n<p>      Upper Rs.140-10-250<\/p>\n<p>      With  a  view  to providing incentives,  it  has\tbeen<br \/>\ndecided\t that posts falling in these groups should be in the<br \/>\nfollowing percentages:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      Group I Lower Scale &#8211; 85%<\/p>\n<p>      Middle Scale &#8211; 15%<\/p>\n<p>      15%  of teachers in this group should straight way  be<br \/>\npromoted to the middle scale by selection based on seniority<br \/>\nand merit, while the rest should be given the lower scale.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      18.   There is no reference in the letter to the\tpost<br \/>\nof Lecturer as there was no such post in the school cadre at<br \/>\nthat  time.   19.  With effect from 1.11.1966, the State  of<br \/>\nHaryana came into existence.  Earlier there was an Education<br \/>\nCommission  popularly  known as Kothari Commission at  the<br \/>\nnational  level which made recommendations regarding further<br \/>\nrevision  of  pay scales of teachers who were  divided\tinto<br \/>\nseveral\t categories.  The basis for classifications  adopted<br \/>\nby   the  Commission  was   academic  qualifications.\t The<br \/>\nrecommendations\t of  the  Kothari   Commission\twere  mostly<br \/>\naccepted  by  the  State  of Haryana.\tThe  pay  scales  of<br \/>\nteachers were revised and the decision of the Government was<br \/>\ncontained  in letter No.152-Edu.II-68\/540 dated 5th  January<br \/>\n1968  from the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education<br \/>\nDepartment,   Chandigarh   to  the    Director\t of   Public<br \/>\nInstruction, Haryana, Chandigarh.  The letter also fixed the<br \/>\npercentage  in\twhich various incumbents were to be  divided<br \/>\nfor purposes of higher scale or the lower scale as mentioned<br \/>\nin  the\t letter.   Column  II referred to  the\tcategory  of<br \/>\nteachers  and  Column III set out the revised  grades.\t Sl.<br \/>\nNo.1  pertains\tto  J.B.T.\/J.S.T.\/J.A.V.   etc.\t  Sl.\tNo.2<br \/>\npertains  to  Masters\/Mistresses (Trained  Graduates).\t Sl.<br \/>\nNo.3  relates  to  Lecturers  (Post  Graduates).   The\tN.B.<br \/>\nreads:\tThe lecturers will be given one advance increment as<br \/>\nsoon  as  they\tattain professional  training.\t Sl.   No.4<br \/>\nrefers to Head masters\/Headmistresses etc.  There is nothing<br \/>\nin  the\t said letter to show that the post of Lecturers\t was<br \/>\nincluded  in Appendix A to the Punjab Educational  Service<br \/>\nRules or that it came to be governed by the said Rules.\t The<br \/>\nletter\trefers merely to revision of scales of pay and\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  set  out  the method of recruitment  or  conditions  of<br \/>\nservice.   There  is nothing in the letter to show that\t the<br \/>\ncategories  of teachers set out in Sl.No.1 and Sl.No.2\twere<br \/>\nautomatically  entitled\t to become lecturers or entitled  to<br \/>\nthe sca les of pay applicable to the lecturers.\t 20.  It may<br \/>\nbe mentioned here that there was an earlier letter issued by<br \/>\nthe  Punjab Government on 29.7.1967 revising the pay  scales<br \/>\nof the teaching personnel of Government schools in the State<br \/>\nof  Punjab  w.e.f.   1.11.1966 after  consideration  of\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations\t made by the Kothari Commission.  Though the<br \/>\nsaid letter is not applicable to the teachers in the present<br \/>\ncase,  reference has been made to the same and reliance\t has<br \/>\nbeen  placed  on a decision of this Court in which the\tsaid<br \/>\nletter\twas  considered.   We will advert to  that  decision<br \/>\nlater  and it is unnecessary for us to dilate any further on<br \/>\nthe  letter  of the Punjab Government dated 29.7.1967.\t 21.<br \/>\nLearned\t counsel  appearing for some of the teachers  placed<br \/>\nbefore\tus  policy  letters dated  19.2.1979  and  20.9.1979<br \/>\nissued\tby  the\t Government  of Punjab and  wanted  to\tdraw<br \/>\ninference  therefrom that the principle of pay being  linked<br \/>\nto  qualifications  as\trecommended  by\t Kothari  Commission<br \/>\nreport\thas been implemented in the State of Punjab and\t the<br \/>\nsame  inference should be drawn with reference to the  State<br \/>\nof  Haryana also.  We are unable to accept that\t contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.   In  so far as the State of Haryana is  concerned,\t one<br \/>\nother  letter  has been placed before us by the counsel\t for<br \/>\nthe State Government viz.  letter No.7\/2(I)\/90-4 FR-I Dated,<br \/>\nChandigarh,   the  9th\tMarch1990   sent  by  the  Financial<br \/>\nCommissioner  &amp;\t Secretary  to Government  Haryana,  Finance<br \/>\nDepartment   to\t the  Commissioner  &amp;  Secretary  to   Govt.<br \/>\nHaryana,   Education  Department.   That   letter  makes   a<br \/>\nreference to the Circular letter dated 23rd July 1957 issued<br \/>\nby  the Punjab Government to which we have already  adverted<br \/>\nin  detail.   The  letter  makes   also\t reference  to\t the<br \/>\nsubsequent  letter  dated  5.1.1968   which  has  also\tbeen<br \/>\nreferred  to  by  us earlier.  Reference has  been  made  to<br \/>\nsubsequent  Notification  No.GSR- 20\/Const\/Art\/309\/89  dated<br \/>\n29th  February,\t 1980  by virtue of which the  letter  dated<br \/>\n5.1.68 stood inoperative automatically.\t It is seen from the<br \/>\nsaid  letter that the Haryana Government had revised the pay<br \/>\nscales\t   further\tunder\t    Notification     No.GSR-<br \/>\n20\/Const\/Art\/309\/87  dated  29.4.87 with effect\t from  1986.<br \/>\nUltimately,  the  letter clarifies that the teachers in\t the<br \/>\nEducation  Department  in  the\tState of  Haryana  were\t not<br \/>\nentitled  to be placed in the higher scales of pay in  terms<br \/>\nof  Para  3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23rd\tJuly<br \/>\n1957  or any subsequent letter or Notification issued by the<br \/>\nHaryana\t Government  referred  to therein which\t had  become<br \/>\ninoperative.   The  last  sentence in Para 6 of\t the  letter<br \/>\nreads  as  follows:  The masters\/teachers in the  Education<br \/>\nDepartment  will  be  placed in the scales of pay  of  their<br \/>\nrespective  categories\tto which they are appointed  against<br \/>\nthe sanctioned posts and mere possessing\/acquiring of higher<br \/>\nqualifications\twill not entitle them automatically to claim<br \/>\nhigher pay scales<\/p>\n<p>      23.   Thus a perusal of the Educational Service  Rules<br \/>\nwhich  have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing  amendments<br \/>\nfrom  time  to\ttime and the  subsequent  Government  policy<br \/>\nletters\t and  circulars\t show  that  the  teachers  are\t not<br \/>\nentitled  to higher scales of pay applicable to the posts of<br \/>\nlecturers  automatically  on their acquiring  post  graduate<br \/>\nqualifications\tor such qualifications as are prescribed for<br \/>\nthe post of lecturers.\tWe have already pointed out that the<br \/>\npost  of lecturers has throughout been governed by different<br \/>\nsets  of  rules and never by the Punjab Educational  Service<br \/>\nClass  III  School  Cadre  Rules,  1955\t or  the  amendments<br \/>\nthereto.  Hence, the common question raised in these matters<br \/>\nhas   to   be  answered\t in   the   negative   against\t the<br \/>\nteache\t  rs\/masters\/mistresses some of whom are respondents<br \/>\nCivil\tAppeal\tNo.4304\t of  1990   and\t the  others   being<br \/>\npetitioners  in in\tNo.210 4\/98.  S.L.Ps and  appellants<br \/>\nin  Civil  Appeal on IVRulings referred to by  counsel\tboth<br \/>\nsides.\n<\/p>\n<p>      24.  Some of the judgments cited relate to teachers in<br \/>\nthe  State  of Punjab and others relate to teachers  in\t the<br \/>\nState  of  Haryana .  We think it better to refer  to  cases<br \/>\nrelating  to the teachers in the two States separately.\t  We<br \/>\nshould not be understood as holding that the position in the<br \/>\nState  of Punjab is different from the position in the State<br \/>\nof  Haryana.   It  may happen to be the same but we  do\t not<br \/>\nexpress any opinion in this case on the situation prevailing<br \/>\nin the State of Punjab.\t We are concerned here only with the<br \/>\nteachers  in  the State of Haryana.  In order to  appreciate<br \/>\nthe ratio of the rulings relied on by counsel on both sides,<br \/>\nwe  refer to the cases relating to the teachers in the State<br \/>\nof  Punjab separately and the cases relating to teachers  in<br \/>\nthe State of Haryana separately.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A.  Cases relating to teachers in the State of Punjab.\n<\/p>\n<p>      25.   The\t earliest case arose with reference  to\t the<br \/>\ncomposite  State  of Punjab before the Re-organization.\t  In<br \/>\nthat case, the Government letter dated 23.7.1957 to which we<br \/>\nhave  made reference in extenso earlier was considered.\t  It<br \/>\ncannot be disputed that the principle laid down in that case<br \/>\nwill  apply equally to the State of Punjab and the State  of<br \/>\nHaryana\t in  so far as the interpretation of the  Government<br \/>\nletter\tdated  23.7.1957  is concerned.\t  (i)  Kirpal  Singh<br \/>\n(1975)\t4 S.C.C.  740 26.  The case was reported as State of<br \/>\nPunjab\t&amp;  Another  versus Kirpal Singh\t Bhatia\t and  others<br \/>\n(1975)\t4  S.C.C.  740.\t The respondents in that  case\twere<br \/>\nteachers  in  the former State of Pepsu which merged in\t the<br \/>\nState  of Punjab on 1.11.1956.\tThe teachers claimed revised<br \/>\nscales of pay as well as the posts of Masters on the grounds<br \/>\nthat  they had taken degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or\t its<br \/>\nequivalent  and\t that the Government letter dated  23.7.1957<br \/>\nentitled  them to the posts of Masters to the extent of\t 25%<br \/>\nof the vacancies.  The High Court accepted the contention of<br \/>\nthe  teachers  and upheld their claim.\tThe appeal filed  by<br \/>\nthe State of Punjab was dismissed by this Court which agreed<br \/>\nwith  the view taken by the High Court.\t After referring  to<br \/>\nthe  Government\t letter dated 23.7.57 in detail, this  Court<br \/>\nreferred  also\tto Rules 7 and 10 of the Punjab\t Educational<br \/>\nService\t , Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 which provided<br \/>\nmethod\tof recruitment and the entitlement to such scales of<br \/>\npay  as\t may  be authorized by the Government from  time  to<br \/>\ntime.\tThis  Court  held that the higher scale of  pay\t was<br \/>\neffective  either from the date when the teachers passed the<br \/>\nexamination  of\t Bachelor of Training or its  equivalent  or<br \/>\n1.5.57\twhichever  was later.  Referring to a  letter  dated<br \/>\n7.11.58,  this\tCourt observed that the teachers  could\t not<br \/>\nclaim  vacancies by promotion exceeding 25% and their  claim<br \/>\nfor  appointment by promotion had to take into consideration<br \/>\nnot  merely their seniority but also their merit.  The Court<br \/>\npointed\t out  that while the earlier letter dated  July\t 23,<br \/>\n1957  fixed  the scales of pay on the basis of the  academic<br \/>\nqualification, the s ubsequent letter dated November 7, 1958<br \/>\nrecogniz       ed the right of promotion to 25%.  the  posts<br \/>\nof  Masters to the extent of 716 (ii)Gurpal Tuli 1984 (Supp)<br \/>\nS.C.C.\t 27.   The next case relating to Punjab schools\t was<br \/>\nGurpal\tTuli  and others versus State of Punjab\t and  others<br \/>\n1984 (Supp) S.C.C.  716.  This Court considered the Circular<br \/>\nletter\tdated  29.7.67 issued by the State of Punjab  giving<br \/>\neffect to the recommendations of the Kothari Commission from<br \/>\n1.11.1966  in  respect\tof teachers in\tGovernment  schools.<br \/>\nParagraph  2 of the Circular letter referred to lecturers in<br \/>\nHigher Secondary Schools etc.  and it was specified that the<br \/>\nnumber\tof posts in the Lecturers Grade would be 1571  i.e.<br \/>\n742  posts  for\t the  existing\t school\t Lecturers  and\t 829<br \/>\nadditional  posts  for\tother Masters\/Mistresses  with\tpost<br \/>\ngraduate  qualifications.  The appellants before this  Court<br \/>\ncontended  that they were employed as Masters and Mistresses<br \/>\nin Higher Secondary Schools run by the Punjab Government and<br \/>\npossessed  post graduate qualifications.  They claimed\tthat<br \/>\nthey  were entitled to either of the higher grades set forth<br \/>\nin  paragraph 2 of the said letter dated 29.7.67  pertaining<br \/>\nto  lecturers.\t This Court negatived their  contention\t and<br \/>\nobserved :  From what has gone before it is clear that they<br \/>\ncan  legitimately claim the benefit of those grades only  if<br \/>\nthey  are  appointed to the posts of Lecturer.\tAnd they  do<br \/>\nnot  dispute  that they are not incumbents of those  posts.<br \/>\nThe  appellants in that case placed reliance on the judgment<br \/>\nin  State of Punjab &amp; Another versus Kirpal Singh Bhatia and<br \/>\nothers (1975) 4 S.C.C.\t740 (Supra) but this Court held that<br \/>\nit  was of no assistance to the appellants.  The  contention<br \/>\nof  the\t appellants that on the principle of equal pay\tfor<br \/>\nequal  work they were entitled to the grades applicable\t to<br \/>\nthe  lecturers, this Court held that the grades specified in<br \/>\nParagraph  2  of  the  circular letter\tdated  29.7.67\twere<br \/>\napplicable  only to those who specifically held the posts of<br \/>\nlecturers.   Thus  the contention of the teachers that\tthey<br \/>\nwere  entitled to the scales of pay applicable to  lecturers<br \/>\non  their  acquiring  post graduate  qualifications  or\t the<br \/>\nqualifications\tprescribed  for\t the post of  lecturers\t was<br \/>\nexpressly negatived.  (iii) Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers<br \/>\nUnion (1988) 2 S.C.C.407<\/p>\n<p>      28.   The\t third\truling was Punjab  Higher  Qualified<br \/>\nTeachers  Union\t and  Others etc.  etc.\t  versus  State\t of<br \/>\nPunjab\tand  others etc.  etc.\t(1988) 2 S.C.C.\t  407.\t The<br \/>\nonly  controversy  in  that case was  whether  JBT  teachers<br \/>\nfalling\t under\tCategory `B Group-II were not  entitled\t to<br \/>\nhigher\tpay  merely  on their acquiring\t higher\t educational<br \/>\nqualifications\tof  B.A.   , B.T.\/B.A.\/B.Ed etc.   but\tthat<br \/>\ngaining\t professional  experience of JST\/JAV was  essential.<br \/>\nAfter  construing  the\trelevant clauses in  the  Government<br \/>\ncircular  the  Court held that it was not necessary for\t the<br \/>\nteachers  to  gain  any experience of training\tand  it\t was<br \/>\nsufficient  if they got the qualifications of B.T.  or B.Ed.<br \/>\nto  be\tentitled to the higher scales of pay  admissible  to<br \/>\nteachers  in  Category\t`B  Group-I with  effect  from\tthe<br \/>\nrespective dates of their acquiring the qualification.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt  had no occasion in that case to consider whether\t the<br \/>\nteachers  were entitled to get the scales of pay  applicable<br \/>\nto  lecturers  automatically  on their\tacquiring  the\tpost<br \/>\ngraduate qualifications.  (iv) Baij Nath (1976) 8 SC.C.\t 516\n<\/p>\n<p>29.   The last of the cases chronologically cited before  us<br \/>\nwas  Baij  Nath and others versus .  The  appellants  before<br \/>\nthis  Court  approached the High Court of Punjab  &amp;  Haryana<br \/>\nseeking\t a direction to the State of Punjab and Director  of<br \/>\nPublic\tEducation  to pay them according to the scale  meant<br \/>\nfor lecturers on their acquiring post graduate qualification<br \/>\nin  terms  of  Government  letter dated\t 23.7.57  read\twith<br \/>\nGovernment  letter  dated 20.9.1979.  The Division Bench  of<br \/>\nthe  High  Court negatived their prayer and they  filed\t the<br \/>\nappeal\tin  this Court after obtaining Special Leave.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt allowed the appeal and directed the Government to pass<br \/>\nan  appropriate order relating to the appellants within\t six<br \/>\nweeks  from  the date of the judgment and make available  to<br \/>\nthem all consequential financial benefits within eight weeks<br \/>\nthereafter.   Learned  counsel\tfor   the  teachers   placed<br \/>\nreliance  on that judgment and contended that the prayer  of<br \/>\nthe appellants in that case made in the writ petition before<br \/>\nthe  High  Court was fully granted by this Court in  appeal.<br \/>\nReliance  was placed on Paragraph 7 of the judgment which is<br \/>\nin  the following terms:  But this is not all in as much as<br \/>\nthe  letter of 23.7.1957, read with that of 20.9.1979,\tthus<br \/>\npermit\thigher\tpay scale for postgraduates;  and  that\t too<br \/>\nfrom  the  date of acquisition of the same, as held by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  in Chaman Lal case.  We would, therefore, state\tthat<br \/>\nthe  teachers in the High Schools of Punjab, who acquire the<br \/>\npostgraduate  qualification, became entitled to such  higher<br \/>\npay  from  the date of acquisition of the qualification,  as<br \/>\nwas  contemplated  in  the letter of 23.7.1957.\t It  may  be<br \/>\nstated\tthat the subject-matter of Gurpal Tuli versus  State<br \/>\nof  Punjab , referred by Shri Yadav for the respondents,  is<br \/>\ndifferent and it has not stated anything contrary to what we<br \/>\nhave held.\n<\/p>\n<p>      30.   On\tthe  other hand, relying on  the  very\tsame<br \/>\npassage\t quoted\t above,\t learned counsel for  the  State  of<br \/>\nHaryana\t contended  that this Court had only held  that\t the<br \/>\nteachers  who  had acquired the postgraduate  qualifications<br \/>\nbecame\tentitled  to higher pay which meant the\t higher\t pay<br \/>\napplicable  to\tMasters.  It was argued that this Court\t did<br \/>\nnot  hold that the appellants in that case were entitled  to<br \/>\nhigher\tscales\tof  pay\t applicable to\tlecturers  on  their<br \/>\nacquiring  the postgraduate qualifications.  31.  A  reading<br \/>\nof  the judgment as reported could not disclose the  correct<br \/>\nposition  as to what was held in that case.  Hence, we\tsent<br \/>\nfor  the  records  in  that   appeal  namely,  Civil  Appeal<br \/>\nNo.4544\/96.   It  is  seen therefrom that  pursuant  to\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of this Court, a decretal order was issued by this<br \/>\nCourt on the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>      That  the judgment and order dated the 29th May, 1992<br \/>\nof  the\t High  Court of Punjab &amp; Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in<br \/>\nC.W.P.\t No.4646  of 1992 be and is hereby set aside and  in<br \/>\nplace  thereof an order allowing C.W.P.\t No.4646 of 1992 and<br \/>\ndirecting   that  an  appropriate   order  relating  to\t the<br \/>\nappellants  herein shall be passed by the respondents herein<br \/>\nin  the\t light of the above statement within six weeks\tfrom<br \/>\nthis  the  19th\t day of March 1996  and\t that  consequential<br \/>\nfinancial benefits shall be made available to the appellants<br \/>\nwithin eight weeks thereafter, be and is hereby substituted;\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.  That the parties herein shall bear their own costs<br \/>\nof this appeal in this Court<\/p>\n<p>      32.   Thereafter\tthe  appellants in the\tsaid  appeal<br \/>\nfiled  Contempt\t Petition  No.\t 196\/97\t for  punishing\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  therein for committing contempt as\t respondents<br \/>\ndid  not  pay  to the appellants salary on  the\t pay  scales<br \/>\napplicable  to\tlecturers.  That petition for  contempt\t was<br \/>\ncontested  by the Punjab State Government and the officials.<br \/>\nIt  was stated in the counter- affidavit that the appellants<br \/>\nwere  entitled\tonly to the higher pay scales applicable  to<br \/>\nthe  Masters.\tIt was also stated in the counter  affidavit<br \/>\nthat  the judgment of this Court in the appeal granted\tonly<br \/>\nthe  higher  pay  scales applicable to Masters and  did\t not<br \/>\ngrant  to the appellants higher pay scales applicable to the<br \/>\nlecturers.  That contention of the Punjab Government and the<br \/>\nofficials  in  the  contempt petition was accepted  by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt and the contempt petition was dismissed by order dated<br \/>\n14.7.1997.   Thus it is clear that in the above appeal\talso<br \/>\nthis  Court did not hold that the teachers were entitled  to<br \/>\nhigher\tpay scales applicable to lecturers automatically  on<br \/>\ntheir\tacquiring   postgraduate   qualifications   or\t the<br \/>\nqualifications\tprescribed for the posts of lecturers.\t 33.<br \/>\nThus  it is seen that even with reference to the teachers in<br \/>\nthe  State  of\tPunjab\thigher\t pay  scales  applicable  to<br \/>\nlecturers  were\t not granted.  No ruling of this  Court\t was<br \/>\ncited  before  us  holding that they would  be\tentitled  to<br \/>\nhigher\t pay  scales  applicable  to  lecturers\t  on   their<br \/>\nautomatically\tacquiring     postgraduate   qualifications.<br \/>\nHowever,  as stated earlier, we do not decide that  question<br \/>\nin  these cases as these relate to teachers in the State  of<br \/>\nHaryana\t and not teachers in the State of Punjab.  B.  Cases<br \/>\nrelating to teachers in the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (i) Kirpal Singh (1975) 4 S.C.C.\t740<\/p>\n<p>      34.   It\tis  needless to refer to the  earliest\tcase<br \/>\nnamely,\t State\tof  Punjab and another versus  Kirpal  Singh<br \/>\nBhatia\tand  others (supra) once again.\t As stated  earlier,<br \/>\nthe  ruling  in\t that  case will undoubtedly  apply  to\t the<br \/>\nteachers  in  the  State  of  Haryana\tin  so\tfar  as\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation\tof the circular dated 23.7.57 is  concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)  Chaman Lal (1987) 2 S.C.C.113 35.\t The next case is of<br \/>\nChaman\tLal  and others etc.  versus State of  Haryana\tetc.<br \/>\n(1987)\t2 S.C.C.  113.\tThe appellants in the appeal  before<br \/>\nthis  Court were all trained graduates possessing B.Ed.\t  or<br \/>\nB.T.   Degrees\tin  addition to B.A.   Degrees.\t  They\twere<br \/>\nteachers  in the Government schools in the State of Haryana.<br \/>\nThey  acquired the Degree qualifications subsequent to their<br \/>\njoining\t service.  Some of them acquired such qualifications<br \/>\nbefore\t5.9.1979  and  some  after  that  date.\t  After\t the<br \/>\nCircular  dated\t 23.7.57  issued  by  the  composite  Punjab<br \/>\nGovernment,  the  State\t of Haryana had passed an  order  on<br \/>\n5.1.68\trevising  the  scales  of   pay\t with  effect\tfrom<br \/>\n1.12.1967.   Thereafter, teachers who had acquired B.T.\t  or<br \/>\nB.   Ed.   Qualifications were held entitled to\t the  higher<br \/>\nscales\tof  pay\t since\t they  acquired\t the  qualifications<br \/>\nirrespective  of  the dates when they were adjusted  against<br \/>\nthe  post of Masters.  On September 5, 1979, the  Government<br \/>\nof Haryana issued an order imposing conditions for the grant<br \/>\nof  Masters  grade to unadjusted J.B.T.\t teachers  who\thad<br \/>\nacquired   B.T.\/B.Ed.\tqualifications.\t   The\tHigh   Court<br \/>\ninterpreted  the  said order of the Government to mean\tthat<br \/>\nthe  teachers  who  had\t acquired   the\t B.T.\tor  B.\t Ed.<br \/>\nQualification  subsequent  to  1.12.1967 and  before  5.9.79<br \/>\nwould  be entitled to the higher grade but with effect\tfrom<br \/>\n5.9.79\tonly  and that those who acquired the  qualification<br \/>\nsubsequent  to 5.9.79 were not entitled to the higher grade.<br \/>\nAccording to the judgment of the High Court the order of the<br \/>\nGovernment  dated 5.1.68 did away with the principle of\t the<br \/>\n23.7.57\t order\tthat the teachers who acquired B.T.   or  B.<br \/>\nEd.   Qualification  got  the  higher\tgrade  and  that   a<br \/>\nconcession  was\t shown\tin 1979 enabling  the  teachers\t who<br \/>\nacquired  such\tqualifications between 1968 and 1979 to\t get<br \/>\nthe higher scale from 1979.  That view of the High Court was<br \/>\nupset by this Court in the above case.\tThis Court held that<br \/>\nthe  order of the Government dated 5.1.1968 must be read  in<br \/>\nthe light of the order dated 23.7.1957 and the report of the<br \/>\nKothari Commission which was accepted.\tThis Court said that<br \/>\nthere  could be no doubt that the Government never  intended<br \/>\nto  retract  from the principle that teachers acquiring\t the<br \/>\nB.T.   or  B.\tEd.    Qualifications  thereafter  would  be<br \/>\nentitled  to  higher grade with effect from  the  respective<br \/>\ndates  of  their acquiring the qualifications.\t This  Court<br \/>\nalso   held  that  the\torder\tdated  5.9.79\twas   indeed<br \/>\nsuperfluous.  In that view, the appeal filed by the teachers<br \/>\nwas  allowed  and the Court directed the Government and\t the<br \/>\n     officials to give the higher grade admissible to to all<br \/>\nthe  teachers who had acquired the B.T.\/B.Ed.  qualification<br \/>\nMasters\t qualifications.   with effect from their  acquiring<br \/>\nthe  respective\t (iii)Wazir Singh 1995 Supp (3) S.C.C.\t 697\n<\/p>\n<p>36.   The  next\t judgment  of this Court  in  the  order  of<br \/>\nChronology  is\tWazir  Singh JBT Teacher and  others  versus<br \/>\nState of Haryana through its Secretary, Education Department<br \/>\nand  others  1995 Supp (3) S.C.C.  697.\t In that  case,\t the<br \/>\nCourt  had to consider the policy instructions issued by the<br \/>\nHaryana Government on 9.3.1990 whereby it retracted from the<br \/>\nearlier\t principle  that teachers acquiring the B.T.  or  B.<br \/>\nEd.   Degree  would be entitled to higher grade with  effect<br \/>\nfrom   the   respective\t dates\tof   their   acquiring\t the<br \/>\nqualifications.\t   This\t  Court\t held\t that\tthe   policy<br \/>\ninstructions   issued  by  the\t Government  would   operate<br \/>\nprospectively and any teacher acquiring the qualification of<br \/>\nB.T\/B.Ed  would not get the higher pay scales  automatically<br \/>\non  acquiring  such  qualifications.  This Court  also\tmade<br \/>\nclear that those who had acquired such qualifications before<br \/>\n9.3.1990  would be entitled to get the benefit of Para 2  of<br \/>\nthe  Punjab Government Letter dated 23.7.57.  (v) Ravi\tBala<br \/>\n1997)  1  S.C.C.  267 37.  In State of Haryana\tand  Another<br \/>\nversus\tRavi  Bala  and\t others (1997) 1  S.C.C.   267,\t the<br \/>\nprinciple  laid down in Wazir Singh versus State of  Haryana<br \/>\n(supra)\t was  reiterated and the claim of teachers  who\t had<br \/>\nacquired  the higher qualifications after 9.3.90 for  higher<br \/>\nscales\tof  pay\t was rejected.\t38.  Thus it is\t seen,\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is  no judgment of this Court holding  that  teachers<br \/>\nacquiring  postgraduate\t qualifications\t  or  qualifications<br \/>\nprescribed  for the post of lecturers would automatically be<br \/>\nentitled  to  scales of pay applicable to the  lecturers  on<br \/>\nacquiring  such\t qualifications without being  appointed  as<br \/>\nlecturers  in accordance with the rules.  V.  Ruling of\t the<br \/>\nFull  Bench  of the High Court of Punjab &amp;  Haryana  Bhagwan<br \/>\nDutt Sharma ILR 1988 (2) Pg.246<\/p>\n<p>      39.   In\tBhagwan Dutt Sharma versus State of  Haryana<br \/>\nI.L.R.\t 1988 (2) Punjab and Haryana P.246 the question\t was<br \/>\nwhether\t the  teachers\twho acquired the B.T.\tor  B.\t Ed.<br \/>\nQualification  would be entitled to the higher scales of pay<br \/>\nsince  they  acquired the qualification irrespective of\t the<br \/>\ndates  when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters.<br \/>\nA  Division Bench of the High Court in C.W.P.  No.   7553\/76<br \/>\nnegatived the claim of the teachers.  That writ petition was<br \/>\none  of a bunch of cases including C.W.P.  1220\/78 which had<br \/>\nalso  been  disposed  of  by   the  common  judgment.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner  in C.W.P.  1220\/78 took the matter in appeal  to<br \/>\nthis Court and succeeded.  The judgment of this Court was in<br \/>\nChaman\tLal  and  others versus State of  Haryana  (1987)  3<br \/>\nS.C.C.\t 113.  We have already referred to that judgment  in<br \/>\ndetail.\t  The  correctness of the judgment of  the  Division<br \/>\nBench in C.W.P.\t 7553\/76 was referred to a larger Bench by a<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge  of that Court probably before the matter\t was<br \/>\ndisposed  of  by this Court in Chaman Lals case\t (supra)  .<br \/>\nThe  Full  Bench  after\t referring to  Kirpal  Singhs  case<br \/>\n(supra)\t and Chaman Lals case (supra) held that in view\t of<br \/>\nthe  decision  of  the Supreme Court in\t Chaman\t Lals  case<br \/>\n(supra)\t the  reference was to be answered in favour of\t the<br \/>\nwrit  petitioners  and accordingly the Full Bench held\tthat<br \/>\nthe  writ petitioners were entitled to the Masters pay from<br \/>\nthe  date they acq uired the qualification.  40.  Thus,\t the<br \/>\nFull  Bench had no occasion to consider the question whether<br \/>\nthe  teachers  would  be  entitled  to\tthe  scales  of\t pay<br \/>\napplicable to the lecturers automatically on their acquiring<br \/>\npostgraduate  qualifications.\tIt cannot by any stretch  of<br \/>\nimagination  be contended that the ratio of the decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Full Bench was that those who had acquired postgraduate<br \/>\nqualifications\twere automatically entitled to pay scales of<br \/>\nlecturers.   In\t the judgment under appeal in  Civil  Appeal<br \/>\nNO.4304\/90,  the  High\tCourt has merely recorded  that\t the<br \/>\nparties\t counsel agreed that the writ petition was squarely<br \/>\ncovered\t by  the judgment of the Full Bench in Bhagwan\tDutt<br \/>\nSharmas\t case  (supra)\tand ordered that there will  be\t an<br \/>\norder  in  terms of the ratio given in the Full Bench  case.<br \/>\nAccording  to the learned counsel for the teachers, the said<br \/>\ndirection  to  pass an order in terms of the ratio given  in<br \/>\nthe  Full Bench case would tentamount to upholding the claim<br \/>\nof  the\t writ petitioners that they were entitled to  higher<br \/>\nscales\tof pay applicable to lecturers.\t There is absolutely<br \/>\nno  merit  in  this  contention.   No  such  ratio  can\t  be<br \/>\ndiscovered  from the judgment of the Full Bench.  VI.  Civil<br \/>\nOriginal Contempt Petition No.649\/89 on the file of the High<br \/>\nCourt<\/p>\n<p>      41.  In view of the above position, the claim of Kamal<br \/>\nSingh  Saharwat who was the first writ petitioner before the<br \/>\nHigh  Court in C.W.P.  7122\/88 that the concerned  officials<br \/>\nshould\tbe  punished  for contempt as he was  not  paid\t his<br \/>\nsalary\ton  the pay scales applicable to the  lecturers\t was<br \/>\nunsustainable.\t The contempt petition was on the face of it<br \/>\nwithout\t any  merit and there was no justification  for\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  in\t issuing  notice on the\t said  petition\t for<br \/>\ncontempt.   Of\tcourse\tthe High Court had not come  to\t any<br \/>\ndecision   or\texpressed  any\t opinion  in  the   contempt<br \/>\nproceedings  but the fact that the High Court issued  notice<br \/>\nto  the respondents in the contempt petition shows that\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court considered that there was a prima facie case for<br \/>\nproceeding  under the Contempt of Courts Act.  No doubt\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  in\t the contempt petition could  have  appeared<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  High Court and filed a reply pointing out\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was  no\tquestion  of any contempt as  there  was  no<br \/>\ndisobedience  of  the order of the High Court in as much  as<br \/>\nthe  ratio  of\tthe  Full Bench did  not  entitle  the\twrit<br \/>\npetitioners  to\t higher pay scales applicable to  lecturers.<br \/>\nInstead,  the  State Government and the Director  of  Public<br \/>\nInstructions  came to this Court with an appeal against\t the<br \/>\norder of the High Court in the writ petition.  As the appeal<br \/>\nhas  been  pending from 1990, no purpose will be  served  by<br \/>\ntaking\ta  technical  view of the matter and  directing\t the<br \/>\nappellants  to appear before the High Court and contest\t the<br \/>\nproceeding  in\tcontempt.   VII.  Conclusions  42.   In\t the<br \/>\nresult,\t we have no hesitation to hold that the teachers are<br \/>\nnot  entitled  to  claim  higher pay on the  scales  of\t pay<br \/>\napplicable  to\tlecturers  on their  acquiring\tpostgraduate<br \/>\nqualification without being appointed as lecturers.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the State of Haryana has categorically  stated<br \/>\nthat  higher pay on the scales applicable to the Masters was<br \/>\nalready\t being paid to the teachers and that at any rate the<br \/>\nGovernment  has\t absolutely no objection to pay the same  if<br \/>\nthey  were entitled thereto in accordance with the law\tlaid<br \/>\ndown  by  this Court.  We have already referred to the\tfact<br \/>\nthat  the  only\t person\t to whom higher pay  on\t the  scales<br \/>\napplicable  to the lecturers was being paid was Kamal  Singh<br \/>\nSaharwat the first petitioner in C..W.P.  7122\/88 before the<br \/>\nHigh  Court.   At  the time of grant of\t leave,\t this  Court<br \/>\npassed\tan  order  in the stay petition that  if  the  State<br \/>\nultimately  succeeds,  it  will be entitled  to\t appropriate<br \/>\nrelief.\t  Consequently,\t the State Government, appellant  in<br \/>\nCivil  Appeal  No.4304\/90 is entitled to recover  back\tfrom<br \/>\nKamal  Singh  Saharwat\tthe first respondent in\t the  appeal<br \/>\nwhatever  has been paid over and above his entitlement.\t  It<br \/>\nwill  be  open\tto  the\t  Government  to  take\t appropriate<br \/>\nproceedings,  therefor, if it decides to recover the  excess<br \/>\nafter  such  a\tlong lapse of time.   Similarly,  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  is entitled to recover from such other  persons,<br \/>\nif  any,  to  whom  excess payments  have  been\t made.\t The<br \/>\nproceedings  in\t Contempt Petition, namely,  Civil  Original<br \/>\nContempt  Petition  No.649 of 1989 on the file of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of Punjab &amp; Haryana requires to be dismissed.  If  it<br \/>\nis  still  pending on the file of the High Court,  a  formal<br \/>\norder  of dismissal may be passed by the High Court pursuant<br \/>\nto  this judgment.  Civil Appeal No.4304 of 1990 is  allowed<br \/>\non  the above terms.  43.  S.L.P.  Nos.1005-06\/98,  1002\/98,<br \/>\n10080\/95,  1000\/98  and 1003-04\/98 as well as  Civil  Appeal<br \/>\nNo.2104\/98  are dismissed.  44.\t The view taken by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in  the subsequent contempt\/execution proceedings  is<br \/>\ncorrect\t  and  consequently  S.L.P   Nos.    944-51\/98\t and<br \/>\n1008-09\/98 are dismissed.  45.\tThe parties shall bear their<br \/>\nrespective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 Bench: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.Srinivasan PETITIONER: THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999 BENCH: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.Srinivasan JUDGMENT: I. Factual canvas The earliest appeal in this [&hellip;]<\/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-52292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-09T13:15:00+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=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T13:15:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":7133,\"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\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\",\"name\":\"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-09T13:15:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-09T13:15:00+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":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T13:15:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999"},"wordCount":7133,"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\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999","name":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-09T13:15:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-haryana-and-another-vs-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-others-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kamal Singh Saharwat And Others on 21 September, 1999"}]},{"@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\/52292","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=52292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}