http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BAIJ NATH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/03/1996

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   646        1996 SCALE  (3)51

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T HANSARIA,J.      Leave granted. 2.   The appellants  approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking  a direction  on the respondents, which were the State  of Punjab and the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), to  pay them  according to  the scale  meant  for Lecturers, on  their acquiring  post graduate qualification, in terms  of Government  letter No.5058-FE-II-57/5600  dated 23.7.1957  read  with  Government  letter  No.8937-5  ED-II- 79/2659   dated 20.9.1979.  The Division  Bench of  the High Court has denied the prayer. Hence this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. 3.   The Government letter of 23.7.1957 is on the subject of revision of  scales of  pay of low paid Government servants. So  far   as  the   teachers  in  Education  Department  are concerned, they  have been  dealt in  Para 3  and it  speaks about the  decision of  the Government to place all teachers according to their qualifications in two broad categories: A and B.  As to Category A, whose educational qualification is mainly graduation  in different  disciplines,  it  has  been stated that  they would get a scale (Rs.110-250) with higher start for  M.A. or M.Sc. This Court had occasion to lay down the purport  of this  letter in  State of  Punjab vs. Kirpal Singh AIR  1976 SC  2459 (=1976  (1)  SCR  529).  Ray,  CJ., speaking for  a  three-Judge  bench  stated  that  this  did visualize a mass increase of scale of pay. The contention of the State  counsel that the letter only meant that a teacher who passed  graduate examination  would be  entitled  to  be appointed as  Kaster, and  on being so appointed he would be entitled to  the scale  of pay,  was not  accepted.  It  was stated  that  the  teachers  who  possessed  degrees  became entitled to scales of pay according to Category A. 4.   The State  found it  difficult, having  regard  to  the prevailing financial position, to extend the benefit of that letter to  the much  wider section  of teachers,  and so, it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

issued a  circular on 19.2.1979 stating that the teachers of the Education Department would not automatically be entitled to placement  in the  higher  scales  of  pay  by  the  mere circumstance  of   their  improving   or  acquiring   higher qualifications in  the course of their service. The teachers agitated and  wanted a  more generous dispensation. This led to the  issuance of the letter of 20.9.1979 permitting grant of higher  scale from  the date of passing of the respective higher examination.  It may be pointed out that the State of Haryana had also passed a similar order on 5.9.1979 and this Court in  Chaman Lal  vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 1621 (=1987(2) SCR  923), had  held that  the teachers  acquiring B.T. or  B.Ed. qualification  became entitled  to higher pay scale from respective dates of acquiring the qualification. 5.   There is  no difficulty so far. The question is whether the teachers  in the  High Schools,  on the  acquisition  of post-graduate degree,  are entitled to the scale of ay meant for Lecturers.  The High  Court has  denied the  same on the ground that  the post  of Lecturer does not form part of the High Court  cadre. According  to the  appellants this is not correct in  so far  as the  State of  Punjab  is  concerned, inasmuch as,  though the  Punjab Educational  Service, class III. School  Cadre  Rules,  1955  when  made,  consisted  of Headmasters and  Masters only, but by Education Department’s Notification of  9th December,  1969, the  post of Lecturers had come to be added in the cadre. (It may be mentioned that this Notification  was issued  to supersede  Notification of 4.7.1969 on  the same  subject because  in that Notification the   word    "Lecturers"   was    not   mentioned   through inadvertence). It  is thus  clear that the school cadre came to consist or Lecturers also from 1969. 6.   In the  aforesaid premises  the question  is whether on acquisition of  post-graduate qualification  the teachers in the High Schools are entitled to the pay scale meant for the Lecturers. To  sustain this  stand, reliance has been placed on Memo  No. 3101-E  II 64/8950  dated 21st May, 1964 and it has been  contended that  Masters  of  the  schools  in  the revised pay scales had come to be designated as Lecturers. A perusal of  the memo,  however, shows  that  it  dealt  with Masters in  the Government Higher Secondary Schools, and not in the High Schools, with whose teachers we are concerned in the present  appeal. So,  the appellants  cannot  lay  their claim on   the  pay scale  meant for Lecturers on the ground that their  posts having  been designated  as Lecturers they are entitled to the same. 7.   But  this   is  not  all  inasmuch  as  the  letter  of 23.7.1957, read  with that  of 20.9.1979, does permit higher pay scale  for post graduates; and that too from the date of acquisition of  the same,  as held  by this  Court in Chaman Lal’s case.  We would, therefore, state that the teachers in the High  Schools of  Punjab, who acquired the post graduate qualification, became  entitled to  such higher pay from the date  of   acquisition  of   the   qualification,   as   was contemplated in  the letter  of 29.7.1957.  It may be stated that the  subject matter of Gurpal Tuli vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1901 (=1985 (17 SCR 882), referred by Shri Yadav for the  respondents, is  different and  it has  not  stated anything contrary to what we have held. 8.   The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appropriate order in the light  of what  has been  stated above  shall be  passed relating to  the appellants  within six weeks from today and consequential financial  benefits shall  be  made  available within  eight   weeks   thereafter.   In   the   facts   and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.

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