http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2999 of 2006

PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Jasbir Singh & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/07/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12079-81of 2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding  that the respondents are entitled to pay at a scale applicable  to lecturer, from the date of the initial deputation till  absorption as lecturer.

       Undisputed background, are essentially as follows:

       Respondents were working as teachers designated as  masters in the Punjab Education Department.  On the basis of  the Government order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated  20.07.90 certain officials were appointed on deputation and on  transfer basis in their  present pay scale against the post  mentioned against each.  Nine persons were accordingly  posted and on transfer they were appointed as lecturers.  The  Government order dated 3.8.1990 is of significance to which  we shall advert infra.  The respondents made a claim that they  were entitled to the pay scales as lecturers since they were on  deputation and the experience as lecturer should be computed  in the parent department.  The High Court held that the claim  of arrears of salary for the period from 1989 onwards is on  account of difference in the scale of pay.  The same was found  to be belated and accordingly the prayer was rejected.   However, it was noticed that the respondents had discharged  the duty in the post of lecturers and therefore, from the date of  initial deputation till the actual absorption they were entitled  to the revised scale of pay.

       In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that the order dated 3.8.1990 clearly  indicated that the claim for any sort of monetary benefit or  experience benefit was not available.  After having accepted  that the claim was belated the High Court should not have  treated it to be a case of continuing cause of action. The claim  was highly belated and, therefore, no relief was available.  The  effect of the order dated 3.8.1990 has been completely lost  sight of by the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in the year,  1989, the High Court as noted above, dismissed the claim for  arrear of salaries and had directed the present appellants to  grant the benefit of salary rendered from the date of initial  appointment till the date of regularization.

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

       Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that the respondents having rendered service for a  long period cannot be deprived of their legitimate entitlement.           Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted  that the respondents had worked as lecturers and merely  because there is some stipulation in the order dated 3.8.1990  relating to deputation and on transfer basis that cannot  override the logic of equal pay for equal work.          Learned counsel for the respondents tried to explain that  the true meaning of the descriptive part of the order clearly  shows that the respondents were undertaking the jobs of  lecturers in the college.

       The relevant portion of the order dated 3.8.1990 reads as  follows:

       "On the recommendations of the Recruitment  Committee for appointment in the (DIET’s Faculty)  institutes of education and training.  The following  officials are hereby appointed on deputation and  on transfer basis in their own present pay scale  against the post mentioned against each.  They  will not be entitled for any other monetary  benefits, seniority, deputation allowance and claim  in any way the experience benefit against the post  of Lecturer. These orders are issued in compliance  with Govt. order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78,  dated 20.07.90."

       A bare reading of the aforesaid underlined operation  clearly shows that the respondents’ claim was clearly  unacceptable.  It was categorically mentioned in the order  extracted above  that the concerned officers were appointed on  deputation and on transfer basis in their own present pay  scale and they were not entitled to any monetary benefit,  seniority etc.   

In view of the clear stipulations, the High Court fell into  grave error in holding that the respondents were entitled to  pay scale applicable to Lecturers. That being so the High Court  ought not to have entertained the writ petition.

 The appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs.