REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4714 OF 2006

State of Haryana and others ...Appellants   

Versus

Hem Lata Gupta and others  ...Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4715 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4716 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4717 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4719 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4721 OF 2006

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the orders of the Punjab and Haryana  

High  Court  whereby  the  alleged  denial  of  advance  increments  to  the  writ  

petitioners  (respondents  herein)  has  been declared illegal  and the appellants  

have been directed to grant them increments in terms of the instructions issued

by  the  Government  of  Punjab  vide  Memo No.  6462-ED-II(2)60/32640  dated  

1.9.1960  and  the  Government  of  Haryana  vide  letter  No.152-Edu-II-69/540  

dated 5.1.1968.  

2. The respondents  joined service as teachers  in different  categories i.e.,  

Lecturers,  Masters/Mistresses,  Language  Teachers  and  Physical  Training  

Instructors either in the undivided State of Punjab or the newly formed State of  

Haryana,  which  came  into  being  with  effect  from  1.11.1966.  Some  of  the  

respondents possessed post-graduate qualifications at the time of entry in the  

service while others claim to have acquired such qualifications after joining the  

service.  Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and others filed Writ Petition No. 18638/1997 for  

issue  of  a  mandamus  to  the  concerned  authorities  of  the   Government  of  

Haryana  to  give  them benefit  of  2/3  advance  increments  from  the  date  of  

acquiring post-graduate qualifications in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued  

by the Government of Punjab.  The same was disposed of by the High Court with  

a direction that representation dated 1.10.1997 submitted by the writ-petitioners  

be  decided  by  the  competent  authority  by  passing  a  reasoned  order.   In  

compliance  of  the  Court’s  directive,  the  Director  of  Secondary  Education,  

Haryana (for short, `the Director’), passed order dated 30.7.1998 whereby he  

rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that after fixation of their  

pay in the revised pay scales in terms of the policy contained in letter dated  

5.1.1968 of the Government of Haryana, the teachers are not entitled to advance  

2

increments  in  terms  of  Memo dated  1.9.1960  issued  by  the  Government  of  

Punjab.   The  Director  also  observed  that  the  instructions  issued  by  the  

Government of Punjab were applicable only to the Masters working in the grade  

of  Rs.110/250  and  were  not  applicable  to  other  teachers  like  Junior  Basic  

Teachers,  Language  Teachers,  Art  and  Craft  Teachers,  Physical  Training  

Instructors,  Headmasters  and  Lecturers  and,  therefore,  they  cannot  claim  

advance increments in terms of those instructions.  For the sake of reference,  

the relevant portions of order dated 30.7.1998 are extracted below:-

I. “That  the  petitioners  were  the  members  of  Punjab  Educational Service Class-III (School Cadre) Rules, 1955 and  their conditions of service were governed by the provisions  of the said rules.  The pay has been defined in para 10 of  the said rules as under:

10. Pay: Members of the service will be entitled to such  scale of pay as may be authorized by the Govt. from time to  time.

This rule clearly contemplates that members of the service  like the petitioners will be entitled to such scale of pay as  authorized by Govt. from time to time, meaning thereby, as  soon as the pay scales of the employees are revised, the  present  pay  scale  attached  with  the  post  will  be  of  no  consequence.

II. That as per rule 10 of the said service rules the petitioners  are entitled to such scales of pay as authorized by the govt.  from time to time.  In Appendix A of the said rules the pay  scales  of  Rs.110/250  with  a  higher  start  of  2/5  advance  increments on acquiring of  M.A./M.Sc.  qualifications which  was enforced at the time of framing of the said service rules  was only provided for the post of Masters/Mistresses and not  to  other  categories  of  teachers.   The  said  scale  of  pay  remained operative upto 30.11.1967 because after formation  of the State of Haryana, the State Govt. vide letter dated  5.1.1968  had  further  revised  the  pay  scale  of  the  

3

Masters/Mistresses  from  Rs.110/250  to  220/400  w.e.f.  1.12.1967.  and by virtue of the letter dated 5.1.1968 the  earlier  circulars regarding revision of pay scales issued by  the  either  Governments  stood  automatically  superseded.  Meaning thereby Masters/Mistresses who were earlier made  eligible  for  the grant  of  benefit  of  advance increments  in  terms of the pay scales shown in Appendix A of the service  rules  1955 and further  supplemented  as  per  joint  Punjab  Govt. letter No. 6382-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960  become disentitled to the benefit of advance increments on  acquiring  Post  Graduation  qualifications  after  having  been  given revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967.  In other words  such  Masters/Mistresses  who  got  the  Post  Graduation  qualification on or after 1.12.1967 and were appointed in the  service or after 1.12.1967 are not eligible to get the benefit  of higher start of 2/3 increments as such provisions did not  exist in the Govt. letter dated 5.1.68 under which the grades  were revised w.e.f.  1.12.1967.   By virtue of the statutory  sanction in rule 10 of the Punjab Educational Service Class- III  (School  Cadre)  Rules,  1955 vide which the pay scales  were subject to variation from time to time, the petitioners  are not entitled to the advance increments as after revision  of  pay  scales  w.e.f.  1.12.1967  the  pay  scales  shown  in  Appendix A in the said service rules 1965 and letter dated  23.7.57 did not remain in existence as the petitioners have  either  been  appointed  after  1.12.67  or  acquired  the  M.A./M.Sc. qualifications after 1.12.67.

III. xxx xxx xxx

IV. That after 1.12.67, the State Govt. had further revised the  scales of pay of its employees including the petitioners w.e.f.  1.4.79  and  1.1.86  by  framing  rules  under  the  proviso  of  Article 309 of the Constitution of India and these rules are  known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987  published on 29.2.80 and 29.4.87 respectively.  At this time  also  as  provision  of  grant  of  2/3  advance  increments  on  acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed and as such the  petitioners  are  not  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  advance  increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed  and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of  advance increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.

V. xxx xxx xxx

4

VI. That further mere look of the provisions of Appendix-A of  the said rules 1955 and later on supplemented vide Punjab  Govt., letter No.6482-Edu.III (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960  would show that the benefit of 2/3 advance increments was  only given to the category of Masters/Mistresses working in  the grade of Rs.110/250 and not to the other categories of  teachers  like  J.B.T.,  Maths,  Sanskrit,  Punjabi,  Art  &  Craft  teachers,  P.T.I.,  Headmasters  and Lecturers.   Thus  those  petitioners who are working/appointed against the said posts  are also not entitled to 2/3 advance increments on acquiring  of M.A./M.Sc.  qualification.”

3. Respondents  Smt.  Hem  Lata  Gupta  and  11  others  challenged  the  

aforementioned order in C.W.P. No. 17842/1998.  They pleaded that in view of  

the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960,  

they are entitled to advance increments as of right and fixation of their pay in  

the revised pay scales with effect from 1.12.1967 cannot be made a ground for  

denying them the benefit of advance increments.  In the counter affidavit filed  

before  the  High Court,  the  appellants  pleaded  that  the  respondents  are  not  

entitled  to  advance  increments  in  terms  of  the  instructions  issued  by  the  

Government  of  Punjab  because  the  same  will  be  deemed  to  have  been  

superseded with the revision of pay scales of various categories of teachers with  

effect from 1.12.1967.   

4. By an order dated 8.1.2001, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed  

the writ petition and issued direction, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.  

4714/2006.   The  Division  Bench  relied  upon the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  

5

Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 697, State of Haryana  

v. Harbans Lal (2002) 10 SCC 125 and held that even though pay scales of the  

teaches were revised by the Government  of  Haryana,  the earlier  instructions  

were not superseded and, as such, the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit  

of advance increments in terms of the policy decision contained in Government  

of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960.  The Division Bench also noted that teachers  

employed in Kurukshetra District have been allowed personal pay equal to one  

increment in their respective grades for a period of 5 years and held that other  

teachers cannot be discriminated.  The writ petitions filed by other respondents  

were  likewise  allowed  and  similar  direction  was  issued  for  grant  of  advance  

increments to them.

5. Shri  P.N.  Misra,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  

argued that as a result of revision of pay scales of the teachers with effect from  

1.12.1967, the policy contained in Government of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960  

will be deemed to have been superseded and the High Court committed serious  

error  by  relying  upon  the  said  memo  for  issuing  a  mandamus  for  grant  of  

advance increments  to  the respondents.   Shri  Misra referred to  letters  dated  

5.1.1968, 20.6.1977 and 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of Haryana and  

argued that once the State Government took a conscious decision to revise the  

pay scales of teachers and grant them increments on fulfillment of the specified  

conditions, the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab could not be  

6

invoked by the respondents for claiming benefit of advance increments.  On the  

other hand, Shri Balbir Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents argued  

that on acquiring higher qualifications,  his clients became entitled to advance  

increments  in  terms  of  Memo dated  1.9.1960  issued  by  the  Government  of  

Punjab  and  they  cannot  be  deprived  of  that  right  simply  because  the  

Government  of  Haryana  decided  to  revise  the  pay  scales  with  effect  from  

1.12.1967.

6. We  have  considered  the  respective  submissions.   In  exercise  of  the  

powers conferred upon him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of  

India, the Governor of Punjab framed the Punjab Educational Service Class-III  

(School  Cadre)  Rules,  1955  (for  short,  “the  1955  Rules”)  for  regulating  

recruitment  and  conditions  of  service  of  persons  appointed  to  the  Punjab  

Educational State Service, Class III,  School Cadre.  The same were notified on  

30.5.1957.  Rule 10 of the 1955 Rules lays down that members of the service will  

be entitled to such scale of pay as may be authorized by the Government from  

time to time.  The scales of pay of different categories of teachers, which were in  

force at the relevant time, were specified in Appendix `A’ annexed to the 1955  

Rules.  For the post of Headmasters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-

350.  For the post of Masters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-10-300.  For  

certain other categories of teachers, the pay scale was Rs.110-8-190/10-250 with  

a start of Rs.126 to those having the qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with third  

7

division and Rs.150 to those possessing qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with  

second or first division.  After two months, the Government of Punjab issued  

circular  dated  23.7.1957  for  revision  of  the  scales  of  pay  of  certain  posts  

including those of teachers.  This was followed by Memo dated 1.9.1960 vide  

which  the  State  Government  sanctioned  grant  of  advance  increments  to  the  

Masters on their acquiring postgraduate qualifications.  The relevant portions of  

Memo dated 1.9.1960 which constitutes the foundation of the respondents’ claim  

for advance increments are reproduced below:

“Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded to the grant of  advance  increments  to  the  Masters  working  in  the  Punjab  Education  Department,  who  improve/have  improved  their  educational qualifications in the manner detailed below:-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category of    Nature of improved Extent of advance personnel   qualifications increments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Masters (110-8-190/10-250) 2 increments MA/MSc./M.Ed. (3rd Division)

MA/M.Sc./M.Ed. 3 increments (1st/2nd Division)

2. The advantage will be enjoyed only once and not for doing  any subsequent M.A.  It will not be available to those who  were given higher start of entry for being MA/M.Sc./M.Ed.

3. These orders will take effect from the date of issue.

The original date of increments shall  remain unchanged and the  persons concerned should be allowed to retain their old dates of  increments.”

8

7. Though not directly relevant to the issue raised in these appeals, we may  

make a mention of circular letter No. 961-4GS-62/5593 dated 16.2.1962 (this  

circular finds a mention in letter dated 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of  

Haryana),  vide  which  the  Government  of  Punjab  decided  to  give  advance  

increments/rapid  promotions  to  officers  going  abroad  to  improve  their  

qualifications.   This  was  done  with  a  view  to  ensure  that  the  officers  who  

improve their qualifications in foreign countries continue to serve the State.

8. The question of revision of pay scales of the teachers employed under the  

Government of Haryana was considered by the Education Commission which is  

also  known  as  Kothari  Commission.   The  recommendations  made  by  that  

Commission were accepted by the President of India and were implemented by  

the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967.  For this purpose, instructions  

were  issued  vide  letter  No.  152-Edu-II-69/540  dated  5.1.1968,  the  relevant  

paragraphs whereof are reproduced below:

I am directed to say that the matter concerning the revision  of scales of pay of teaching personnel working in Govt. Schools in  Haryana has been engaging the attention of Govt. for sometime  past.  After careful consideration, the President of India is pleased  to  accept  the  recommendations  of  the  Education  Commission  popularly known “KOTHARI COMMISSION” and revise the scale of  pay of Govt. teachers w.e.f. Ist December 1967 in the following  manner:-

Sr.No.  Category of teachers Revised grade 1. J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. & V i) Rs.125-5-

150/5-250

9

Teacher, Drawing Master, (for 85% of the Tailoring Mistresses, Art cadre) & Craft teachers, Domestic ii) Rs.250-10- Mistresses & Shastries 300

(for 15% of the  Cadre)

N.B. The untrained Teachers with Higher Secondary Matriculation  qualifications will draw the starting of Rs.100/- mensum and they  will be integrated in the regular pay of scales only after they obtain  necessary profession qualification.

2. Masters/Mistresses i) Rs.220-8- (Trained Graduates) 300-10-400

(for 85% of the cadre) ii) Rs.400-20- 500 (for 15% of the cadre)

N.B. I) The  1st  &  2nd class  graduates  will  be  entitled  to   draw one advance increment in addition.

ii) The Untrained graduates will be allowed the starting  salary of Rs.200/- per mensum and will be entitled for  the  regular  scales  of  pay  only  after  attaining  the  prescribed professional training.

3. Lecturers (Post Graduates) i) Rs.300-25- 450-25-600 (For Ist & 2nd  class M.A.’s and M.Ed) ii) Rs.250-25- 450/25-550 (For 3rd class M.A.’s and  M.Sc’s)

N.B. The Lecturers will be given one advance increment as  soon as they attain professional training.

1

xxx xxx xxx”

9. After  revision  of  the  pay  scales  of  various  categories  of  teachers,  the  

Government  of  Haryana  issued  instructions  vide  letters  dated  26.7.1972,  

26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for grant of monetary benefits in the form of personal  

pay  to  those  Government  servants  who  improved  their  qualifications  by  

undertaking further  studies  within the country  and abroad.   In 1977,  all  the  

existing instructions were superseded and fresh instructions were issued on the  

subject  vide  letter  No.  4718-2GS-II-77/17173  dated  20.6.1977,  the  relevant  

portions of which are reproduced below:

“Subject: Grant of personal pay to Govt. servants who improve  their qualifications by further study within the country and abroad.

Sir, I am directed to refer to the instructions contained in this  

Department’s  letter  No.  4857-GSII-72/28344  dated  26.9.1972,  letter  No. 6452-2GSII-74/28173 dated 26.11.1974 and letter No.  434-2GS-II 75/21469 dated 17.7.1975 on the subject noted above  and to say that the Government has further considered the matter  and  in  supersession  of  the  aforesaid  instructions,  taken  the  following decisions:-

1. Personal pay shall be granted to all employees, who improve  their qualifications after joining Govt. service, if the qualifications so  acquired  from  a  recognized  University  is/are  higher  than  the  minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were  recruited at the time of entry into Govt. Service, in accordance with  the  scales  and  conditions  laid  down  in  the  succeeding  paragraphs/sub-paragraphs:-

(i) Personal pay admissible for acquiring each of the following  qualifications  shall  be  equal  to  the  amount  of  increment(s)  mentioned against each qualifications:-

1

(a) Diploma of at least one year duration One increment (b) Law degree or post graduate Two increments (c) Doctorate or Post Doctorate Four  increments

    qualification

Provided that the maximum benefit will not exceed the equivalent  of four increments.

(ii) Govt.  employees  who  have  acquired  the  aforesaid  qualifications after 26.9.1972 (i.e. whose result as declared on or  after the said date) shall be eligible for the benefit of personal pay  with  effect  from  the  date  of  declaration  of  the  result  of  the  examination  concerned  and  those  who  had  improved  their  educational  qualifications before 26.9.1972 i.e. whose result was  declared before the said date shall  be eligible for the benefit  of  personal  pay  with  effect  from  the  date  of  issue  of  these  instructions.   In  either  of  the  two  type  of  cases,  thereto  of  increment for the purpose of calculating the amount of personal  pay shall be taken to be the which was last drawn prior to the date  of eligibility.

(iii) No benefit shall not be given for such of these qualifications  as had already been acquired by the Govt. employee before joining  Govt. service.”

10. The  decisions  contained  in  letter  dated  20.6.1977  and  other  related  

communications  were  withdrawn  by  the  State  Government  vide  letter  dated  

20.12.1982, which reads thus:

“No.14/38/82-2GS-II

From

The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.

To

1. All  Heads  of  Departments,  the  Commissioners,  Ambala  and  Hissar  Divisions,  all  Deputy  

1

Commissioners  and  Sub-Divisional  Officer  (Civil)  in  Haryana

2. The  Registrar,  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court,  Chandigarh

Dated, Chandigarh, the 20th December, 1982

Subject: Grant of personal pay to Government servants who  improve  their  qualifications  by  further  study  within  the country and abroad.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the instruction contained in Punjab  Government No.961-4GS-62/5593, dated the 16th February, 1962,  Haryana  Government  letter  No.4718-2GS-II-77/17173,  dated  the  20th June, 1977, letter No.14/3/78-GS-II dated 26.7.78 and letter  No.  of  even  number  dated  the  23rd October,  1978  and  letter  No.14/18/78-GS-II, dated the 16th July, 1979, on the subject noted  above  and to  say  that  the  matter  concerning  grant  of  advance  increments as personal pay to Government employees who improve  their academic qualifications while in service has been under the  consideration of the Government for some time.  It has now been  decided to discontinue the practice of giving advance increments to  Government employees for acquiring higher qualifications and all  the instructions issued on the subject as referred to above should  be treated as withdrawn with immediate effect.

Yours faithfully

Sd/- Joint Secretary General Admn.

      For Chief Secretary to Government Haryana”

11. Having  noticed the factual  matrix  of  the case and various  instructions  

issued  by  the  Governments  of  Punjab  and  Haryana,  we  shall  now  consider  

whether the direction given by the High Court for grant of advance increments to  

1

the respondents from the date of acquiring postgraduate qualifications is legally  

correct and justified.

12. A reading of rule 10 of the 1955 Rules and Appendix-A appended thereto  

shows that the pay scales prescribed for different categories of teachers prior to  

30.5.1957 were made part of the Rules.  After two years, the Government of  

Punjab issued instructions vide letter dated 23.7.1957 for grant of higher scales  

of pay to the teachers from the date of acquiring higher qualifications.  By Memo  

dated 1.9.1960, sanction was accorded for grant of 2/3 advance increments to  

the  Masters  from  the  date  of  improving  their  educational  qualifications.  

However, it was made clear that the advantage of advance increments will not  

be available to those who were given higher start on account of possessing the  

postgraduate qualifications.   This stipulation was incorporated in Memo dated  

1.9.1960  because  some  of  the  teachers  who  possessed  postgraduate  

qualifications were already given the benefit of additional increments by being  

allowed higher start in the prescribed pay scale.  These instructions could be  

treated as having been issued by the Government of Punjab under rule 10 of the  

1955 Rules.   The teachers  employed  under  the  Government  of  Haryana  got  

benefit  of the policy decisions contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 and Memo  

dated 1.9.1960 till their pay scales were revised vide letter dated 5.1.1968.   

1

13. The argument of the respondents, which found favour with the High Court  

that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not  

result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive  

in the first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, we are convinced that the said  

argument is fallacious and should have been rejected by the High Court .  All the  

financial  benefits  including increments admissible  to  the teachers  in terms of  

extant  policy  decisions  must  have  been  taken  into  consideration  by  Kothari  

Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales.   If this was not  

so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to  

first and second class graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales  

of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of  

the cadre)  were prescribed.   Similarly,  there was no justification to give one  

advance  increment  to  the  Lecturers  on  their  attaining  professional  training.  

Equally,  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  State  Government  to  give  additional  

benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on  

improving qualifications after joining Govt. service.  This being the position, we  

are convinced that the High Court  was not right in holding that the decision  

taken  by  the  President  of  India  to  accept  the  recommendations  of  Kothari  

Commission for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and grant of  

revised pay scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have the effect of  

superseding the policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960.

1

14. In our view, the teachers employed under the Government of Haryana  

could claim benefit of the higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of  

the  policy  decisions  taken  by  the  Government  of  undivided  Punjab  and  

instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made  

effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter.

15. At this stage, we may usefully notice some of the judgments. In State of  

Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4 SCC 740, this Court was called upon  

to consider whether teachers were entitled to higher pay scales in terms of the  

policy contained in letter dated 23.7.1957.  On behalf of the State of Punjab, it  

was argued that the policy decision taken by the Government was not intended  

to give benefit of higher scales of pay to all the teachers who acquired higher  

qualifications  and  before  claiming  higher  post,  the  concerned  teachers  were  

required to be selected by the Board.  While rejecting the argument, this court  

held as under:

“The  High  Court  said  that  the  contention  of  the  State  that  the  teachers  could  not  be  considered  for  promotion  unless  they  satisfied the condition of subject combination namely, that if they  were  ordinary  graduates  with  training  qualifications,  they  must  have  studied  two  out  of  the  four  subjects,  namely.  History,  Geography, Economics and Political Science is not supported by the  letter dated November 7, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the  letter does not speak of any limitation of subject combination for  promotion.

Some of  the teachers  were  from time to  time promoted  to  the  posts  of  masters  but never  continuously beyond a period of  six  

1

months. After completion of six months, there was a break to avoid  continuity in service for the posts of masters beyond six months.  The State contended that the teachers could not be considered for  promotion  unless  the  Board  were  satisfied  that  the  teachers  if  ordinary  graduates  with  training  qualifications  must  have  also  studied two out of four subjects of History, Geography, Economics  and Political Science. The teachers on the other hand contended  that once the State Government had taken a decision as embodied  in the letter dated November 7, 1958, the policy of not allowing the  teachers to continue beyond six months on temporary basis was  nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the letter dated  November  7,  1958.  The  teachers  also  contended  that  the  promotion of teachers to masters is completely independent of any  consideration  like  the  combination  of  subjects.  The  High  Court  rightly held that letter dated November 7, 1958 was subject only to  two limitations. One was that teachers could not claim more than  one-fourth of the vacancies of the posts of masters and the other  was that the claim by way of promotion would be considered by  the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The  High Court rightly held that the letter dated November 7, 1958 was  not subject to the condition of subjects combination being fulfilled.  There  are  three  categories  of  teachers  —  Science  Masters,  Mathematics Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of  combination of subjects can be read into the letter of November 7,  1958.”

16. In  Chaman Lal  v.  State  of  Haryana (1987)  3  SCC 113,  this  Court  

recognized the entitlement of the teachers to get higher scales of pay from the  

date of acquiring higher qualifications in terms of the policy contained in letter  

dated 23.7.1957 issued by the Government of Punjab.  The plea of the State  

Government that those teachers who acquired B.T. or B. Ed. after 1.12.1967 i.e.  

the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and before 5.9.1979, would  

be  entitled  to  higher  grade  only  with  effect  from  5.9.1979  and  those  who  

acquired higher qualification after 5.9.1979 would not be entitled to the higher  

1

grade was negatived only on the ground that 1968 order had not been brought  

to the notice of the Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (supra).  

This is evident from the following portion of paragraph 2 of the judgment:

According to the judgment  of  the High Court  under  appeal,  the  1968  order  did  away  with  the  principle  of  the  1957  order  that  teachers  acquired  BT or  BEd qualification  should  get  the higher  grade  and  that  a  concession  was  shown  in  1979  enabling  the  teachers who acquired the BT or BEd qualification between 1968  and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979. In our opinion this is  plainly to ignore all the events that took place between 1957 and  1980. The principle that pay should be linked to qualification was  accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh  Bhatia case1 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 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.  

17. With respect,  we find it  difficult  to appreciate as to how the so-called  

failure of the Government to bring the 1968 order to the notice of this Court in  

Kirpal  Singh  Bhatia’s case  was  relevant  for  deciding  the  issue  raised  in  

Chaman  Lal  v.  State  of  Haryana (supra).   The  facts  of  Kirpal  Singh  

1

Bhatia’s case were that the respondents before this Court were employed as  

teachers in the former State of PEPSU.  After merger of the State of PEPSU with  

the State of Punjab, the respondents claimed the revised scale of pay from the  

date of acquiring the degrees of B.T. or its equivalent in terms of the policy  

contained in letter dated 23.7.1957.  They also claimed promotion to the post of  

Master.  The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents.  The  

appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by this Court.  Since letter dated  

5.1.1968 issued by the Government of Haryana for giving effect to the decision  

taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations made by Kothari  

Commission for revision of the pay scales of the Government teachers had no  

bearing whatsoever on the claim of Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others, there was no  

occasion for the Government of Punjab to produce that letter before the High  

Court and/or this Court.  We are sure, if the contents of letter dated 5.1.1968 are  

read  in  a  correct  perspective,  interpretation  thereof  in  Chaman  Lal’s case  

cannot  be  treated  as  correct.   As  per  the  recommendations  of  Kothari  

Commission, the revision of pay scales was linked with qualifications.  This has  

been noted by the Court in Chaman Lal’s case and yet the so-called omission  

on the Government’s part to produce letter dated 5.1.1968 before this Court in  

Kirpal  Singh  Bhatia’s  case  was  made  a  ground  for  holding  that  

notwithstanding revision of the pay scales of the teachers employed under the  

Government of Haryana, they would continue to get the benefit of the policy  

contained in letter dated 23.7.1957.  

1

18. With  a  view  to  overcome  the  difficulties  created  by  the  judgment  in  

Chaman  Lal’s  case,  the  Government  of  Haryana  issued  instructions  dated  

9.3.1990 making explicit what was implicit in the instructions issued vide letter  

dated 5.1.1968 for  implementation of  the recommendations made by Kothari  

Commission.  In Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 697,  

this Court considered the question whether the teachers employed under the  

Government of Haryana are entitled to higher grade admissible to Masters with  

effect from the dates of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications.  The concerned  

teachers  relied  upon  the  policy  contained  in  letter  dated  23.7.1957  of  the  

Government of Punjab, judgment in  Chaman Lal’s case and pleaded that the  

benefit of higher grade cannot be denied by the Government of Haryana despite  

the policy contained in Finance Department letter dated 9.3.1990.  On behalf of  

the respondents, it  was argued that the policy instructions contained in letter  

dated  23.7.1957  were  superseded  by  the  subsequent  instructions  issued  on  

9.3.1990.  The Court extracted the observations made in  Chaman Lal’s  case,  

referred to the policy contained in letter dated 9.3.1990 and held that once the  

Government altered the earlier policy, the judgment in Chaman Lal’s case will  

have  no  application  and  the  appellants  who  had  not  acquired  B.T./B.Ed.  

qualification before 9.3.1990 cannot claim the benefit  of higher grade of  pay  

automatically.   

2

19. In State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat (1999) 8 SCC 44, a  

somewhat similar issue was considered.  The High Court had accepted the claim  

of  the  teachers  that  they  are  entitled  to  higher  scales  of  pay  according  to  

qualifications irrespective of the post held by them.  This Court noted that the  

recommendations  made  by  Kothari  Commission  were  accepted  by  the  State  

Government and the pay scales of the teachers were revised vide letter dated  

5.1.1968.  The Court also took cognizance of the policy contained in letter dated  

9.3.1990 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Haryana and  

rejected the claim of the respondent-teachers that they are entitled to higher  

scales of pay applicable to the post of Lecturers on their acquiring post-graduate  

qualifications.   Paragraphs 19,  20, 22 and 23 of the judgment which contain  

detailed consideration of the issue read as under:

19. With effect from 1-11-1966, the State of Haryana came into  existence.  Earlier  there  was  an  Education  Commission  popularly  known  as  “the  Kothari  Commission”  at  the  national  level  which  made recommendations regarding further revision of pay scales of  Teachers who were divided into several categories. The basis for  classifications  adopted  by  the  Commission  was  academic  qualifications.  The  recommendations  of  the  Kothari  Commission  were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales of  Teachers were revised and the decision of  the Government was  contained in Letter No. 152-Edu.II-68/540 dated 5-1-1968 from the  Secretary  to  Government  of  Haryana,  Education  Department,  Chandigarh  to  the  Director  of  Public  Instruction,  Haryana,  Chandigarh. The letter also fixed the percentage in which various  incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher scale or the  lower scale as mentioned in the letter. Column II referred to the  category of teachers and Column III set out the revised grades. Sl.  No.  1  pertains  to  JBT/JST/JAV  etc.  Sl.  No.  2  pertains  to  Masters/Mistresses  (trained  graduates).  Sl.  No.  3  relates  to  Lecturers  (postgraduates).  The NB reads:  “The Lecturers  will  be  

2

given one advance increment as soon as they attain professional  training.”  Sl.  No.  4  refers  to  Headmasters/Headmistresses  etc.  There  is  nothing  in  the  said  letter  to  show  that  the  post  of  Lecturers was included in Appendix ‘A’ to the Punjab Educational  Service Rules or that it came to be governed by the said rules. The  letter refers merely to revision of scales of pay and does not set out  the method of recruitment or conditions of service. There is nothing  in the letter to show that the categories of Teachers set out at Sl.  No. 1 and Sl. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become Lecturers  or entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the Lecturers.

20. It  may  be  mentioned  here  that  there  was  an  earlier  letter  issued by the Punjab Government on 29-7-1967 revising the pay  scales of the teaching personnel of government schools in the State  of  Punjab  w.e.f.  1-11-1966  after  consideration  of  the  recommendations  made by the Kothari  Commission.  Though the  said letter is not applicable to the Teachers in the present case,  reference has been made to the same and reliance has been placed  on a decision of this Court in which the said letter was considered.  We will advert to that decision later and it is unnecessary for us to  dilate any further on the letter of the Punjab Government dated 29- 7-1967.

22. Insofar as the State of Haryana is concerned, one other letter  has been placed before us by the counsel for the State Government  viz. Letter No. 7/2(I)/90-4 FR-I dated, Chandigarh, 9-3-1990 sent  by  the  Financial  Commissioner  &  Secretary  to  Government  of  Haryana, Finance Department to the Commissioner & Secretary to  Government of Haryana, Education Department. That letter makes  a reference to the circular  letter  dated 23-7-1957 issued by the  Punjab Government to which we have already adverted in detail.  The letter also makes reference to the subsequent letter dated 5-1- 1968 which has also been referred to by us earlier. Reference has  been  made  to  subsequent  Notification  No.  GSR- 20/Const./Art/309/89 dated 29-2-1980 by virtue of which the letter  dated 5-1-1968 stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the  said letter that the Haryana Government had revised the pay scales  further under Notification No. GSR-20/Const./Art/309/87 dated 29- 4-1987 with effect from 1986. Ultimately, the letter clarifies that  the teachers in the Education Department in the State of Haryana  were not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms  of para 3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23-7-1957 or any  subsequent letter or notification issued by the Haryana Government  

2

referred  to  therein  which  had  become  inoperative.  The  last  sentence in para 6 of the letter reads as follows:

“The  Masters/Teachers  in  the  Education  Department  will  be  placed in the scales of pay of their respective categories to which  they  are  appointed  against  the  sanctioned  posts  and  mere  possessing/acquiring of  higher qualifications will  not entitle them  automatically to claim higher pay scales.”

23. Thus a perusal  of the Educational  Service Rules which have  been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to  time and the subsequent government policy letters and circulars  show that the Teachers are not entitled to higher scales of pay  applicable to the posts of Lecturers automatically on their acquiring  postgraduate qualifications or such qualifications as are prescribed  for the post of Lecturers. We have already pointed out that the  post of Lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets  of  rules  and  never  by  the  Punjab  Educational  Service  Class  III  School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the  common question raised in these matters has to be answered in  the  negative  against  the  Teachers/Masters/Mistresses  some  of  whom are respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 and the  others being petitioners in SLPs and appellants in Civil Appeal No.  2104 of 1998.

20. The Court then considered various judgments rendered by this Court and  

the High Court including Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case, Gurpal Tuli v. State of  

Punjab 1984 Supp SCC 716,  Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers’ Union v.  

State of Punjab (1988) 2 SCC 407, Baij Nath v. State of Punjab (1996) 8  

SCC 516,  Chaman Lal’s case,  Wazir Singh’s case,  State of Haryana v.  

Ravi  Bala (1997)  1 SCC 267 and concluded that  on acquiring  postgraduate  

qualification or qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturers, teachers are  

not automatically entitled to the scales of pay of the Lecturers without being  

appointed as Lecturers in accordance with the rules.   

2

21. In our view, the doubts and confusion created due to the judgment in  

Chaman Lal’s  case on the entitlement of  the teachers to automatically  get  

particular  pay  scale  prescribed  for  higher  post  have  been  clarified  by  the  

judgments in Wazir Singh’s case and Kamal Singh Saharawat’s case and  

in  view  of  the  latter  decisions,  the  respondents’  claim  for  grant  of  advance  

increments  in  terms  of  Memo dated  1.9.1960  issued  by  the  Government  of  

Punjab cannot be accepted.

22. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while deciding  

the writ petitions filed by the respondents, the High Court  neither adverted to  

the reasons assigned by the Director  for rejecting the respondents’  claim for  

advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated 30.7.1998.  The  

High Court also failed to notice that the writ petitions were filed not only by the  

Masters/Mistresses,  but  also  by  other  categories  of  teachers  i.e.,  Lecturers,  

Language Teachers,  Physical  Training Instructors  etc.  who could not,  by any  

stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in terms of Memo dated  

1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab which was confined to the Masters  

only.  Therefore, on this ground also the direction given by the High Court for  

grant of advance increments to the respondents cannot be sustained.

23. In the result, the appeals are allowed.  The impugned orders are set aside  

and  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  respondents  before  the  High  Court  are  

2

dismissed.  However, it is made clear that this order shall not be made a ground  

to deny the benefit, if any, admissible to the respondents or any one of them in  

terms  of  the  policy  contained  in  letter  dated  20.6.1977.   Rather,  the  State  

Government  and  the  concerned  authorities  should  suo  motu undertake  

appropriate exercise for grant of benefit of that policy to the respondents and  

other  similarly  situated  persons,  pass  appropriate  orders  and  pay  monetary  

benefits  to  the  concerned  teachers  within  six  months  from  the  date  of  

production/receipt of copy of this judgment.  Needless to say that such benefit  

shall  not  be  admissible  to  the  teachers  who  may  have  improved  their  

qualifications on or after 20.12.1982 i.e., the date on which the policy contained  

in letter dated 20.6.1977 was withdrawn.

………………………………J. (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

……………………………..J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

New Delhi; Dated: January 05, 2010.

2