REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     753             OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6485 of 2004

State of Haryana and Anr.   ....Appellants

Versus

Dharam Singh & Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the

1

respondents.  The High Court relied on an earlier decision rendered by it in

Civil Writ Petition No.15157 of 1998.   

3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that  the  directions  given  by the  High  Court  to  consider  the  case  of  the

respondents for grant of one increment on account of promotion to the next

higher rank has no legal basis. It is pointed out that the respondents claim

was for promotional increments. The writ petitioners claimed promotional

increments on the basis that they were working as J.B.T. teachers and were

promoted to  the  post  of  Headmaster  on the basis  of  seniority-cum-merit.

They have already received the same higher pay scale of the Headmaster as

a personal  measure,  prior  to being promoted and without  performing the

dues of higher responsibility at that stage.  Strong reliance was placed on a

decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Partap Singh and Ors.

(2006 (10) SCC 251).

4. The ratio in that decision is as follows:

“The  respondents  were  already  getting  the

functional  pay  of  Masters  while  working  as  JBT

teachers.   Because  of  regular  promotion  order  being

2

issued  for  the  post  of  Masters,  it  only  amounted  to

regularization of the pay scale which they were already

drawing i.e. pay scale of Masters. Thus, granting of one

more  increment  because  of  regularization  of  the

respondents  by promoting them to the post of Masters,

would not entitle them to the double benefit; though they

have already got one increment on acquiring the higher

educational qualifications and now on regular promotion

being given in the Masters’ pay scale in which they were

already  working,  they  cannot  claim  another  benefit.

Under Rule 4.4 it could have been possible to grant them

fixation if they were continuing in the old scale of JBT

teachers  and on their  promotion to the post  of Master,

then certainly they would have been entitled to fixation

of pay giving them the initial pay the stage of timescale

next  above  their  substantive  pay in  respect  of  the  old

post.   But  they  are  already  fixed  in  the  pay  scale  of

higher  post  of  Master  which  though  legitimately  they

were not entitled to because of the change in the policy

but  they continued  in  the higher  pay scale  despite  the

3

change in  the policy and the Government did  not  take

any further steps to put the house in proper order.  Be

that  as it  may, since the respondents were drawing the

higher  pay  scale  on  acquiring  of  higher  educational

qualifications i.e. the Master’s pay scale, and now only

regular  orders  have  been  passed,  promoting  them  as

Master,  there is  no question of  again fixing them next

above their  substantive  pay in  respect  of  the  old  post.

They are  not  holding  the  old  post  any more  and  they

were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers i.e. the old

post.   Therefore, there is no question of granting them

the  initial  pay  the  stage  of  timescale  next  above  their

substantive pay in respect  of the  old post.  Judicial  fiat

cannot create anomalous position against the statute.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that

Pratap  Singh’s case  (supra)  has  no  relevance  and  it  is  factually

distinguishable.   

6. The factual scenario has been spelt out above.     

4

7. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion regarding entitlement

relying  on  an  earlier  decision  without  indicating  as  to  how  the  factual

scenario was similar.

8. In the aforesaid background, we deem it fit to remit the matter to the

High Court  to  consider  the  applicability and relevance of  Pratap Singh’s

case (supra) to the facts of the present case and to decide the matter afresh.

9. We  request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the  matter  as  early  as

practicable.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.         

......................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..………….............................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi February 06, 2009

5