http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1382 of 1999

PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Sainderjit Kaur

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH: CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3693 OF 2000

S.B. SINHA, J :

       These two appeals involving identical question of law and  fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed  of by this common judgment.  

       The factual matrix is, however, being noticed from Civil  Appeal No.1382 of 1999.   

On or about 6.8.1981, the respondent was appointed as  Sewing Teacher on regular basis in the  pay scale of Rs.480- 880/- by the District Education Officer, Ferozepur.  She  claimed same scale of pay payable to Classical and Vernacular  Teachers.  The said representation of the respondent was,  however, rejected.   

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, a  writ petition was filed by her before the Punjab and Haryana  High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment was  allowed relying on or on the basis of the earlier decisions of  the said court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab [1988 (4)  SLR 199] and Prabjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab [1994 (3) SCT  262].

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in  passing the impugned judgment insofar it failed to take into  consideration that the Education Department of the Government  of Punjab had made rules in terms of the proviso appended to  Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as ’Punjab  State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978,  in terms whereof the Sewing Teachers and Master(s) or  Mistress(es) were placed in different categories. In terms of  the said rules, the learned counsel would urge, whereas a  master or mistress must possess a degree of a recognised  university with B.Ed.; the requisite educational qualification  of a Tailoring Mistress is only matric or middle or equivalent  with three years’ Teachers’ Training Diploma from the  Industries Department of State or Industrial Training.

It was urged that the method of recruitment in the  category of Master or Mistress and Tailoring Mistress is also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

different.  It was pointed out that on or about 17.2.1989 the  scales of pay of the teaching staff of the Education  Department had been revised; in terms whereof different scales  of pay had been granted to different categories of teachers  and in that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot  be sustained.   

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents, on the other hand, would contend that various  other similarly situated teachers had been granted scales of  pay applicable to Classical and Vernacular Teachers.  It was  further pointed out that the respondent is a handicapped  person.   

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the  opinion that although the High Court proceeded on a wrong  premise in passing the impugned judgment.

In Amarjit Kaur (supra), the writ petitioner therein had  been granted a revised scale of pay and the same was wrongly  withdrawn on the ground that she was confirmed with effect  from 22.5.1974 by mistake.  The High Court rejected the said  contention of the respondent but proceeded further to hold  that the Education Department had classified and recognized  the Tailing Mistress and Classical and Vernacular Teachers in  the same category and, thus, when the scale of pay of the  Classical and Vernacular Teachers had been revised, there was  no reason as to why the pay scale of the Tailoring Mistress  should not be accordingly revised.  

In Prabjot Kaur (supra), the High Court followed Amarjit  Kaur (supra) although the fact of the matter was quite  different.

The High Court, in the above referred decisions, had no  occasion to consider the effect of the statutory rules or the  notification revising scales of pay of different categories of  the teachers.

In a case of this nature, even the doctrine of equal pay  for equal work would not apply when it has not been  established that duties and functions of two categories of  employees are at par. Furthermore, a classification based on  different educational qualifications is permissible.  Yet  again it may not matter as to whether the judgment of the  Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjit Kaur (supra) and  Prabjot Kaur (supra) had been appealed against or not.  [See  Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy and Ors. \026 2003 (9)  SCALE 671].

The High Court while passing the impugned judgment did  not address itself as regard applicability of the 1978 Rules  as also the scales of pay granted to different categories of  teachers by the Government of Punjab in terms of its  notification dated 17.2.1989. By reason of the said  notification, the Government of Punjab adopted the  notification issued by the President of India in relation to  the revised scales of pay to the teaching staff of the  Education Department, the relevant portion whereof is to the  following effect :

Sr. No. Category Present

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Scale Revised  Scale Remarks 5. C & V Teacher i.e. Pbi/Hindi/Urdu/ Sanskrit Teachers 570-1080 (with  3Adv.)  increments  Fi/Urdu  Trs. & 5  increments  to  Sanskrit  Teacher 1640-2925  Sr. Scale  after 8 yrs  service  1800-3200  SI Scale  after 18  years  service  2000-3500

7. Domestic Sc. Trs.  Music Trs. Tabla  Players, Tailoring  Mist. 480-800 1200-2100  Sr. Scale  after 8 yrs  service  1410-2640,  SI Scale  after 18  yrs service  1640-2925

14. Work Experience  Teacher, Vocation  Tr. Sewing Teacher 480-880 1800-2100  Sr. scale  after 8  yrs.  Service  1410-2460  Sr. scale  after 18  years  Service  1640-2925.  

From a perusal of the said notification dated 17.2.1989,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

it is evident that the Classical and Vernacular Teacher had  been placed on a higher scale of pay, namely, Rs.570-1080/-;  whereas the Tailoring Mistress had been placed in the scale of  pay of Rs.480-800/-.  Similar scale of pay had been granted to  the Trained Sewing Teachers. However, different scales of pay  in the categories of Tailoring Mistress and Sewing Teacher had  been made in senior scale after eight years and 18 years of  service respectively.

The validity of Notification dated 17.2.1989 has not been  questioned.  In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment  of the High Court cannot be sustained.   

However, having regard to the fact that the respondents  herein had been granted the same scale of pay and keeping in  view of the fact that she is a handicapped teacher, we are of  the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should  exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the  Constitution of India.   

In Chandra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and  Another [(2003) 6 SCC 545], this Court held:

"In any event, even assuming that there  is some force in the contention of the  appellants, this Court will be justified  in following Taherakhatoon v. Salambin  Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 wherein this  Court declared that even if the  appellants’ contention is right in law  having regard to the overall  circumstances of the case, this Court  would be justified in declining to grant  relief under Article 136 while declaring  the law in favour of the appellants.  Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a  discretionary remedy. (See Champalal  Binani v. CIT, (1971) 3 SCC 20: AIR 1970  SC 645). The High Court and consequently  this Court while exercising their  extraordinary jurisdiction under Article  226 or 32 of the Constitution of India  may not strike down an illegal order  although it would be lawful to do so. In  a given case, the High Court or this  Court may refuse to extend the benefit  of a discretionary relief to the  applicant. Furthermore, this Court  exercised its discretionary jurisdiction  under Article 136 of the Constitution of  India which need not be exercised in a  case where the impugned judgment is  found to be erroneous if by reason  thereof substantial justice is being  done. (See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v.  Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd.  (2003 (4) Supreme 44).  Such a relief  can be denied, inter alia, when it would  be opposed to public policy or in a case  where quashing of an illegal order would  revive another illegal one. This Court  also in exercise of its jurisdiction  under Article 142 of the Constitution of  India is entitled to pass such order  which will be complete justice to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

parties."  

These appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned  observations; but in the facts and circumstances of the case,  there shall be no order as to costs.