http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB HIGHER QUALIFIED TEACHERS UNION(NON-PETITIONERS ) & O

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1988

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  892            1988 SCR  (2)1087  1988 SCC  (2) 407        JT 1988 (1)   399  1988 SCALE  (1)373

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950: Article 14-Classification for purposes  of revision of pay-Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules 1955, Rule 10-Graduate teachers falling in  Category B  Group II-Form  class by  themselves- Cannot be subjected to further requirement of having JST/JAV training for entitlement to higher pay scale.      Punjab Educational  Services  Class  III  School  Cadre Rules 1955: Rule 10 and State Government Circular dated July 23,1957-Category B Group II JBT teachers-Whether entitled to higher   pay   scale   on   acquiring   higher   educational qualifications of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed-Expression ’plus JAV training ’-Interpretation of.

HEADNOTE: %      The State  Government by  Circular dated  July  23,1957 directed revision  of the  existing pay  scales  of  various categories of  subordinate staff  including Teachers  in the Education Department.  Paragraph  3  of  the  said  circular provided for  revision of  pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct categories, Category A and Category B and laid  down the  requirements of  academic  qualification with respect  to each  of them.  Category B was further sub- divided into two groups viz: Group  I-Matric   with  Basic   training  (including  Junior Teachers). Group  II-Junior   School  Teachers   (including   Assistant Mistresses with BA/Inter/Matric plus JAV training).      On more  occasions than  one, this  Court intervened on behalf of those Teachers who had improved or acquired higher academic qualifications  and were  denied higher  scales  of pay, and issued directions for extending the benefit of para 3 of the aforesaid Circular.      In compliance  with the  directions of  this  Court  in Avtar Singh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., the Director of Public Instructions (Schools) 1088 by Order dated June 30, 1986 accorded sanction to payment of arrears of  pay to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I, to 3600  JBT Teachers  belonging to  Category B Group II who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

had improved  their educational  qualifications and acquired degrees in B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Sc., B.Ed. etc. Similar relief was however  denied  to  6,000  other  Teachers  falling  in Category B  Group II  on the  ground that  they did not have requisite  professional   training  of   JST/JAV,  and  were therefore not entitled to the higher grade.      In the Writ Petitions to this Court, by the Matriculate Junior Basic  Trained Teachers  in Government Schools placed in Category  B, Group II of the Circular dated July 23, 1957 it was  contended that  the State  Government was  bound  to grant the benefit of higher grade of pay to all the Teachers belonging to  Category B  Group II  on  their  improving  or acquiring higher  educational qualifications as and from the respective dates  of their passing the examination, and that it was  not  open  to  the  Government  on  the  pretext  of verification of  claims to confine the relief to some of the teachers and  deny the  same to  the  others  who  were  all similarly situated  and recruited  in the  same  manner  and appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had improved their qualifications by  acquiring degrees in B.A., B.T. etc., and that the  so-called professional training i.e. JST/JAV could not be made a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher pay.      These petitions  were contested by the State Government by contending  that the  petitioners were  not  entitled  to higher pay  merely on  their  acquiring  higher  educational qualifications as they did not stand the eligibility test on verification  of   their  claims,   and  that  according  to paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their qualifications were  placed into  two broad  categories  for purposes  of   revision  of  pay,Category  A  consisting  of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc. (Agriculture) and BT, and Category B of whom  Group I  was ’Matric with basic training (including JBT)’.      On the  question: whether  JBT Teachers  falling  under Category B  Group II  were not  entitled to  the higher  pay merely on  their acquiring higher Educational Qualifications of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional experience of JST/JAV training was essential.      Allowing the Writ Petitions, ^      HELD: 1.  Graduate Teachers  form a class by themselves and cannot be subjected to the further requirement of having JST/JAV 1089      training. The words ’plus JAV training’ clearly qualify the work  ’Matric’  and  relate  only  two  Matriculate  JBT Teachers.  Such   a  classification   for  revision  of  pay satisfies the touchstone of Article 14, and would render the action of  the State  Government in  seeking to discriminate between Graduate Teachers with JST/JAV training and Graduate Teachers with or without such training, impermissible as the attempt is  to create  a class  within a  class without  any rational basis. [1095D-F]      2. It  is regrettable that despite clear pronouncements made by  this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions  there is no redressal of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging  to Category B Group II although they had acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications. [1095F-G]      3. The  petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category B Group  II, are  entitled to  higher pay  on  acquiring  or improving their academic qualifications. The respondents are directed to  give them the higher scale of pay as admissible to Teachers  in Category  B Group  I with  effect  from  the respective  dates  of  their  acquiring  the  qualification.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

[1097B-C]      State of  Punjab  &  Anr.  v.  Kirpal  Singh  Bhatia  & Ors.,[1976] 1  SCR 529; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha &  Ors., (C.A.  Nos. 926-27/77  decided on  August 7, 1979); and  Avtar Singh  v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (C.A. No. 3790/83 decided on September 14, 1984, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 63 & 449 of 1986 etc.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      A.K. Ganguli,  A. Sharan  and G.S.  Chatterjee for  the Petitioners.      R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SEN, J.  This is  a batch of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B, Group II in 1090 terms of  paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular dated July 23,  1957 who have been continuously and unrelentlessly struggling to  get the  benefit of  higher grade  of pay  on their improving or acquiring higher qualification viz. B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed./Matric with JST/ Gyani or Prabhakar, as per the terms  thereof, and  the persistent refusal of the State Government to  adhere to  the terms  of  the  said  Circular mainly on  the ground  that such teachers on their improving or acquiring  higher qualifications  during  the  course  of their service would not automatically be placed in different grades  commensurate   with  their  academic  qualifications unless they  had the professional qualification of requisite experience  of   a  post   carried  in   the  higher   grade irrespective  of  the  number  of  posts  available  in  the department  in  that  category.  It  is  asserted  that  the aforesaid  Circular   was  couched   in  somewhat  ambiguous language and  has resulted  in different interpretations and it was  never the  intention of  the Government to undertake the continuing  unintended heavy  financial burden  that had arisen because of the faulty drafting of the Circular.      It is  common ground  that by  the  aforesaid  Circular dated July  23, 1957  the State Government directed revision of  the   existing  pay  scales  of  various  categories  of subordinate offices  including  Teachers  in  the  Education Department. Paragraph  3 thereof  provided for  revision  of pay-scales of  Teachers and  placed them  into two  distinct categories, namely, Category A and Category B and inter alia laid down  the requirement  of academic  qualifications with respect to  each. The  relevant part of paragraph 3 reads as follows:           "3. Teachers  in the  Education Department: It has           been decided  that all teachers according to their           qualifications should  be placed  in the following           two broad categories:                           CATEGORY ’A’           B.A./B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc.            (Agriculture)/and           B.T./Diploma  in   Physical  Education/Diploma  in           Senior Basic Training.                           CATEGORY ’B’           Group I-Matrics  with  Basic  Training  (including           Junior Teachers)           Group   II-Junior   School   Teachers   (including           Assistant Mistresses  with B.A./Inter/Matric  plus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

         J.A.V. Training)." 1091      It is  quite  evident  that  the  revision  of  pay  of Teachers was  based on  the  principle  of  linking  pay  to qualification. It  would not be out of place to mention that the Kothari  Commission constituted  by the State Government of Punjab  considered in  great detail  the scales of pay of Teachers. The  Commission strongly  expressed the  view that the  scales   of  pay   of  Teachers  should  be  linked  to educational qualifications. Accepting the recommendations of the Kothari  Commission, the  State Government of Haryana in 1968 directed  further revision of scales of pay of Teachers working in Government Schools w.e.f. December 1, 1967.      On more occasions than one, this Court had to intervene on behalf of these unfortunate Teachers for the redressal of the wrong  done to them by denial of higher scales of pay on their improving  or acquiring higher academic qualifications and issued directions for extending the benefit of paragraph 3 of  the Circular to them. Despite the repeated directions, the State  Government has been adamant in not complying with such directions  on one  pretext or  another.  In  State  of Punjab &  Anr. v.  Kirpal Singh  Bhatia & Ors., [1976] 1 SCR 529 this  Court upheld  the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1972]  SLR 402  directing that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A. B.Ed.  qualifications would  be  entitled  to  the higher scale  of pay.  The  Court  construed  the  aforesaid Circular as  falling within the ambit of r. 10 of the Punjab Educational Services  Class III  School Cadre Rules, 1955 as to the  entitlement of higher scales of pay and held that it had the  effect of  fixing the  scale of pay on the basis of academic  qualifications.   It  was  accordingly  held  that Teachers who  possessed the degree of B.T. or the equivalent on  May   1,1957  would   be  entitled   to  scales  of  pay commensurate with  such higher  qualification, and as to the Teachers who  acquired such higher qualification thereafter, they would  be entitled to their revised scale of pay w.e.f. the date  they  passed  the  examination.  It  categorically repelled the  contention on  behalf of  the Government  that there could  be no  automatic revision  of the scales of pay dependent upon  the higher  qualifications and unequivocally held  that   Teachers   holding   B.A.,   B.T./B.A.,   B.Ed. qualifications became  entitled to the revised scales of pay according to  Category A  w.e.f. the  date they  passed  the examination in terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular.      In Labh  Singh Garcha & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (W.P. No.  1810/76 decided  on  July  20,  1976),  Chinnappa Reddy, J.  speaking  for  himself  and  Surinder  Singh,  J. allowed the writ petition filed by 1092 JBT Teachers  falling in  Category B who claimed the benefit of higher  scales of  pay as  done in  the case  of Graduate Teachers in  Categroy A  pursuant to the High Court’s decree in Kirpal  Singh Bhatia’s  case. The  Court found  that  the action of  the Government in denying to the JBT Teachers who had acquired  or improved  their educational  qualification, the benefit  of  the  higher  scales  of  pay,  was  per  se discriminatory and  accordingly issued  a direction  to  the State Government  to release  to them  the revised scales of pay admissible  to them  in terms  of  paragraph  3  of  the Circular. The  State Government  carried an  appeal to  this Court. In  State of  Punjab &  Ors. v.  Labh Singh  Garcha & Ors., (C.A.  Nos. 926-27/77  decided on August 7, 1979) this Court held  that the  matter was  squarely  covered  by  the decision of  this Court  in Kirpal  Singh Bhatia’s  case and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

observed  that   ’no  new   point  arises’  and  accordingly dismissed the appeal.      The State  Government having  failed to  carry out  the directions   issued,    the   JBT   Teachers   with   higher qualifications were  constrained to  move the High Court for contempt  but  it  declined  to  interfere.  Aggrieved,  the Teachers came up in appeal. At the hearing of Avtar Singh v. Manmohan Singh  & Anr.,  (C.A. 3790/83  decided on September 14, 1984),  the Court  indicated that  the view taken by the High Court  did not commend to it and wanted learned counsel for the  State Government  to ascertain  the attitude of the Government. At his request, the matter was adjourned. At the resumed hearing,  he signified  the willingness of the State Government to  comply with  the  directions  given  by  this Court. The  Court accordingly  set aside the judgment of the High Court  and directed  the State  Government to implement the order  passed in  Labh Singh  Garcha’s case within three months, holding that the appellants and other petitioners in the High  Court and  Teachers  similarly  situate  i.e.  JBT Teachers with  higher qualifications,  were entitled  to the benefit of  paragraph 3 of the Circular. It pointed out that the Director of public Instructions (Schools), Punjab by her affidavit dated  February 5, 1980 had unconditionally agreed to implement  the same  without any  reservation. As regards such Teachers  who had  not approached  the Court  but  were similarly situate, the Court directed that they must make an application for seeking benefit of the aforesaid Circular.      By a  clarificatory order  dated February 21, 1985, the Court clarified  that every  Teacher entitled to the benefit of the  earlier order  may make  an application  within  six weeks from  that date.  It however  made a  direction to the following effect: 1093           "In the  application the  teacher should strive as           best she/he could to set out his claim as directed           herein. The  Director may  verify the  claim  with           reference  to   record  he   may  have   and   the           eligibility for  relief. But  if the claim is of a           teacher who  was a  petitioner in this Court or in           the   High    Court,   eligibility    enquiry   is           impermissible,  only   amount  of   claim  may  be           verified. The  Director of Education shall process           all the applications received by him in the manner           he thinks  fit but he must make the payment within           three months  from the  date of the receipt of the           application."                                            Emphasis supplied      In  compliance   therewith  the   Director  of   Public Instructions (Schools),  Punjab by  order dated  30th  June, 1986 accorded  sanction to  make payment  of arrears  of pay according to  Teachers belonging  to Category  B Group I, to 3,600 JBT  Teachers falling  in Category  B Group II who had improved  their   educational  qualifications  and  acquired degrees in  B.A., B.T./B.A.,  B.Ed. etc., but denied similar relief to  other 6,000  Teachers falling in Category B Group II i.e.  the petitioners,  on the  ground that  they did not have the  requisite professional  training  of  JST/JAV  and therefore not  entitled to  the higher  grade. The  impugned order proceeds on the premise that eligibility for the claim for JST  grade which was a higher grade, did not depend upon acquiring a  higher educational  qualification of B.A., B.T. etc. but  also to having the requisite professional training i.e. JST/JAV  training and  further that  a higher grade was only allowed  to the  then existing JST Teachers which was a diminishing cadre  and since  recruitment to  that cadre had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

been stopped,  there was  no question  of any entitlement of such  Teachers   to  acquiring  the  necessary  professional training. In  other words,  the Government  has adopted  the stand that  the right  of  the  JBT  Teachers  belonging  to Category B  Group II  to  the  higher  scale  admissible  to Teachers placed  in Category  B Group  I could not simply be based on their educational qualification.      In  support  of  these  petitions  Shri  A.K.  Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, with infinite care took  us through  all the  orders referred to above and rightly submitted  that the State Government having given an undertaking in  Avtar Singh’s case that they are prepared to carry out  the directions  made by  the High Court, they are bound to grant the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to all the  Teachers belonging  to Category B Group II entitled to the  higher grade  of pay on their acquiring or improving their qualification, as 1094 from the  respective dates of their passing the examination. He further  submitted that it was not open to the Government on the  pretext of  verification of  claims to  confine  the relief to  some of  the teachers  and deny  the same  to the others who were all similarly situate, recruited in the same manner and  appointed as  Matriculate JBT  Teachers and  had improved their  qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A., B.T. etc.  and  the  so-called  professional  training  i.e. JST/JAV could  not be  made a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher pay.      In reply Shri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State Government,  with  his  usual  fairness  accepted  that  the Government was  bound by  the  undertaking  given  in  Avtar Singh’s case  but contended  that even  so, the  petitioners were not  entitled to  such higher pay as they did not stand the eligibility  test on verification of their claims merely on their  acquiring  higher  educational  qualification.  He pointed out  that according  to paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers  according to  their qualifications were placed into two  broad categories  for purposes of revision of pay, Category A  consisting of  B.A/B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc (Agriculture) and BT,  and Category B consisting of 4 groups of whom Group I was  ’Matrics with  basic training (including JBT)’. There were three  scales of  pay in  Category  B-Lower  Rs.60-120, Middle  Rs.120   175  and  Upper  Rs.  140-200.  By  way  of incentive, it  was directed  that  posts  falling  in  these grounds would  be in the following proportion-Group I, Lower Scale 85%,  Middle Scale  15%. 15% of Teachers in this group had to  be straightway  promoted  to  the  Middle  Scale  by selection based  on seniority and merit, while the rest were given the  Lower Scale.  The scale  of Rs.60-120  was  later revised to Rs.125-300, that of Rs. 120-175 to Rs.150-300 and that of  Rs.140-200 to Rs.480-880 w.e.f. 1st November, 1966, 16th July,  1975 and  1st January, 1978. In contrast, Junior Secondary  Trained/Junior   Anglo-Vernacular  Teachers  with JST/JAV teachers  training  qualifications  were  placed  in Category B Group II and their pay-scale was not revised. The then existing  incumbents in  this category  were allowed to retain their  existing  pay-scale  of  Rs.80-250  which  was subsequently revised  from time to time as per conditions of their service.  As a  diminishing cadre, they were therefore carried on a protected pay-scale of B.A., B.T. Teachers viz. Rs.620-1200. According  to the learned counsel, the question before the  Court is whether JBT Teachers placed in Category B Group  II have to be given the benefit of the pay-scale of Rs.620-1200. This, he says, cannot be done as these Teachers were not  entitled to  initial scale of Rs.80-250 meant only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

for   Junior   Secondary   Trained/Junior   Anglo-Vernacular Teachers with  JST/JAV training  qualification i.e. Teachers governed by the protected category. At the hearing 1095 we directed the State Government to clarify its stand on the eligibilitytest of  Category B  Group II  Teachers to higher pay. The  Director of  Public Instructions (Schools), Pubjab and  the  Deputy  Director  (School  Admn),  Office  of  the Director of Public Instructions have accordingly filed their additional affidavits  dated 10th  November,  1986  and  9th March, 1987.  The petitioners  have also  placed  on  record their written  submissions in  answer  to  these  additional affidavit.      The controversy  is now limited to the question whether JBT Teachers  falling under  Category B  Group  II  are  not entitled to  the higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualification  of B.A. B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional experience of JST/JAV training was essential.  That   must  turn  on  the  relevant  clause  in paragraph 3 relating to them which may be extracted below:           "Category  ’B’  Group  II-Junior  School  Teachers           (including     Assistant      Mistresses      with           B.R./Inter/Matric plus J.A.V. Training)."      As a  matter of  plain construction, we are quite clear in  our   mind  that  Graduate  Teachers  form  a  class  by themselves  and   cannot  be   subjected  to   the   further requirement of  having JST/JAV training. The words ’plus JAV training’ clearly  qualify the word ’Matric’ and relate only to Matriculate  JBT  Teachers.  Such  a  classification  for revision of  pay satisfies  the touchstone  of Art.  14  and would render  the action  of the State Government in seeking to  discriminate  between  Graduate  Teachers  with  JST/JAV training  and   Graduate  Teachers   with  or  without  such training, impermissible  as the attempt is to create a class within a class without any rational basis.      We  must   accordingly   uphold   contention   of   the petitioners  that   they  are  entitled  to  higher  pay  on acquiring or  improving their  academic qualification. It is regrettable that  despite clear  pronouncements made by this Court as  well as the High Court in a long line of decisions starting with  Kirpal  Singh  Bhatia’s  case,  there  is  no redressal of  the wrong  done to  JBT Teachers  belonging to Category  B  Group  II  although  they  had  acquired  B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed.  qualifications. Quite  recently, in Chaman Lal &  Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987] 3 SCC 113, Chinnappa Reddy, J.  has considered  the question  in some  depth. The learned  Judge   repelled  the   contention  of   the  State Government  of   Haryana  based   on  its  order  dated  5th September, 1979  which was  sought to be interpreted to mean that the  Teachers  who  had  acquired  the  B.T.  or  B.Ed. qualification subsequent to 1st December, 1096 1967, the  date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before 5th  September, 1979, would be entitled to the higher grade but w.e.f. 5th September, 1979 only and that those who acquired the qualification subsequent to that date would not be entitled to the higher grade. According to the High Court in that  case, the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957  order that  Teachers who  acquired B.T.  or  B.Ed. qualification  should  get  the  higher  grade  and  that  a concession was  shown in  1979  enabling  the  Teachers  who acquired the  B.T. or  B.Ed. qualification  between 1968 and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979. This Court held that the view  taken by the High Court could not be sustained and observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

         "The  principle  that  pay  should  be  linked  to           qualification   was   accepted   by   the   Punjab           Government in  1957 and  when Kirpal  Singh Bhatia           case was  argued in  the High  Court  and  in  the           Supreme Court  there was not the slightest whisper           that the  principle had  been departed from in the           1968 order.  In  fact  the  1968  order  expressly           stated  that   the  government  had  accepted  the           Kothari Commission’s report in regard to scales of           pay and  as already  pointed out  by us  the  main           feature of  the  Kothari  Commission’s  report  in           regard  to   pay  was   the  linking   of  pay  to           qualification. That  was apparently the reason why           no such  argument was  advanced  in  Kirpal  Singh           Bhatia case.  Even subsequently  when several writ           petitions were  disposed of  by the  High Court of           Punjab and  Haryana and when the government issued           consequential orders,  it was never suggested that           the 1968 order was a retraction from the principle           of qualification linked pay." The Learned Judge then said:           "The 1968  order must  be read in the light of the           1957  order   and  the   report  of   the  Kothari           Commission which  was accepted.  If so  read there           can be no doubt that the government never intended           to  retract   from  the  principle  that  teachers           acquiring the  BT or  BEd would be entitled to the           higher grade with effect from the respective dates           of their  acquiring that  qualification. The  1979           order was  indeed superfluous.  There was  no need           for any special sanction for the grant of Master’s           grade to  unadjusted JBT  teachers who  had passed           BA,  BEd.  That  was  already  the  position  when           obtained both  as a  result of  the 1957  and 1968           orders 1097           and the  several judgments of the court. We do not           think that  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court was           justified  in  departing  from  the  rule  in  the           judgment under  appeal. The  rule  had  been  well           established and  consistently acted  upon. Nor was           it  open   to  the  government  to  act  upon  the           principle in  some cases  and depart  from  it  in           other cases."      The result therefore is that the writ petitions succeed and are  allowed with  costs. We  direct the  respondents to give to  the petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category B Group  II, the  higher scale of pay admissible to Teachers in  Category   B  Group   I,  they   having   acquired   the qualification of  B.A., B.T./B.A.,  B.Ed. etc.,  with effect from  the   respective  dates   of   their   acquiring   the qualification. N.V.K.                                    Petitions allowed. 1098