http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/09/1999

BENCH: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.Srinivasan

JUDGMENT:

     I.   Factual canvas The earliest appeal in this  Batchwas filed by the State of Haryan a and The Director of Public Instructions,  Haryana.  The appeal came to be filed in this Court  in somewhat peculiar circumstances.  The order of the High  Court against which the appeal was filed was passed by a  Single  Judge of the High Court on 3rd December, 1988  in C.W.P.   7122/88 on the basis of consent of counsel on  both sides.   The  order  was  in the  following  terms  :   The parties  counsel  agree  that  this  petition  is  squarely covered  by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported  as Bhagwan  Dutt  Sharma and others Vs.  State of  Haryana  and another I.L.R.  1988, Vol.  II Punjab 246.  There will be an order in terms of the ratio given in that case.

     2.  The said writ petition was filed in the High Court by  the  respondents  in the appeal.  They were  working  as Teachers/   Masters/Mistresses  in   different  schools   of Haryana.   They  had acquired post  graduate  qualifications while  in  service.  The relevant particulars were given  by them in the Writ Petition.  According to them, the erstwhile State  of  Punjab had issued a Circular on 23rd  July,  1957 raising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f.  1st May, 1957 and  that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled to  pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them irrespective  of  the post held by them.  It was their  case that  the  policy  decision  of the  Punjab  Government  was adopted  by the Haryana Government after it was formed.  The latter  issued  an order directing further revision  of  the scales  of pay of teachers working in Government schools  in 1968.   Reliance  was placed by the writ petitioners on  the recommendations   contained  in  the   report   of   Kothari Commission  which has been accepted by the Government.   The writ  petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court  in Chaman  Lals and Others Vs.  State of Haryana 1987 (3)  SCC 113  and stated that they were entitled to higher scales  of pay   applicable  to  lecturers  on   the  basis  of   their qualifications  as  they  had become  post  graduates.   The prayer  in  the  Writ  Petition was for  issue  of  writ  of mandamus  directing the respondents therein to grant  higher pay  scales to the petitioners in accordance with  Annexures P-1  and  P-2  to the writ petition on the basis  of  higher qualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court in  Chaman Lals Case and also for release of  consequential benefits  i.e.  fixation of pay, arrears etc.  alongwith 12% interest.

     3.  The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

the  appeal.  When it was taken up for hearing, the  counsel on  both  sides  agreed that the matter was covered  by  the judgment  of a Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan  Dutt Sharmas  Case I.L.R.  1988 Vol.  II Punjab 248.  Hence  the High Court passed the order as stated above.

     4.   Thereafter  the  first  petitioner  in  the  writ petition  filed  a  petition  for  contempt  to  punish  the appellants in the appeal for not paying the writ petitioners as  per  the  pay scale applicable to lecturers.   The  High Court  issued  notice on the application for  contempt.   On receipt  of such notice, the Government and The Director  of Public  Instructions  thought  fit to file  a  petition  for Special  Leave  in this Court along with an application  for condonation   of   delay  in   presentation  of  the   same. Obviously,  the  Government  assumed that because  the  High Court  had  issued  notice in the proceedings  of  contempt, orders  would be passed against it in those proceedings  and instead of contesting the same, the Government presented the petition  for  Special Leave in this Court.  The  delay  was      condoned by order dated 17th August, 1990 and leave was granted.   In the :  application for stay, this Court passed the  following order After hearing both counsel, we are  of the opinion that there should be no stay of the High Courts orders  so far as this petition is concerned.  If,  however, the  State  ultimately  succeeds , it will  be  entitled  to appropriate relief.

     5.   Though,  this Court refused to grant stay, it  is admitted  before  us  by  counsel on  both  sides  that  the petitioner  in  the contempt petition is the only person  to whom  higher pay on the scale of pay applicable to lecturers was  being  paid and to all other persons, salary  was  paid only  on  the  pay  scale  applicable  to  masters  and  not lecturers.   6.   The  contention of the Government  in  the appeal  is  that  before the High Court,  counsel  had  only admitted that the matter was governed by the judgment of the Full  Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas  Case and  the  said judgment did not hold that the teachers  were entitled  to  get  higher pay on pay  scales  applicable  to lecturers .  Learned counsel submitted that the judgment had only  decided  that the petitioners in the case  before  the Full  Bench were entitled to masters pay from the date they acquired  the  higher qualifications.  According to  learned counsel,  the  judgment  of  the Full  Bench  can  never  be understood  to  hold  that teachers who  had  acquired  post graduate  qualifications were entitled to the scales of  pay applicable  to  lecturers.  7.  Per contra, learned  counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents in the appeal contended  that  the last sentence in the order of the  High Court  made it clear that the order in the writ petition was in  terms of the ratio given in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas  Case. According  to learned counsel for the writ petitioners,  the ratio  in Bhagwan Dutt Sharmas Case was that the pay of the teachers  was linked to their qualifications.  It was argued that  the principle of pay being linked to qualification  as recommended in Kothari Commission report was accepted by the Government  and  implemented  in   the  Circular  dated  5th January,  1968.  Hence, the writ petitioners were, according to  him,  entitled  to higher scales of  pay  applicable  to lecturers  as they had acquired postgraduate  qualifications which were the qualifications prescribed for lecturers.

     8.   Our attention was drawn by counsel on both  sides to the Government Circulars issued from time to time as well

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

as  Rules  which  governed the education  service  in  1957. Counsel  on  both  sides  referred   in  detail  to  various judgments of this Court considering the Government Circulars and  the Rules.  9.  Subsequent to the judgment in CWP  7122 of  1988,  the High Court had occasion to consider the  same question  in several other writ petitions filed by similarly placed  teachers.   By a detailed judgment dated  5th  June, 1990  in Bachan Lal Lahori Vs.  State of Haryana in CWP  770 of  1989, the High Court negatived the claim of the teachers that  they  were  entitled to the pay scales  applicable  to lecturers.   That judgment was rendered in a batch of  cases and  S.L.P.   1005-06  of 1998 have been filed  against  the order in CWP 374 of 1989 and 1039 of 1989 which were in that batch.  It appears that no appeal has been preferred against the  judgment of the High court in Bachan Lal Case.  10.  In CWP  6045 of 1989, the High Court passed an order on 11/7/91 following the ruling in Bachan Lals Case and dismissing the writ  petition  against which SL.P.  1002 of 1998  has  been filed.  Against similar judgment dated 15th October, 1993 in CWP  1119  of 1989 and 11394 of 1988, S.L.P Nos.  100 80  of 1995  and  1000 of 1998 have been filed.  11.  On  2.8.1995, the  High Court passed a detailed order in CWP 6478 of  1995 (Tilak  Raj  Gupta  and  Others   Vs.   State  of   Haryana) reiterating the order in Bachan Lals Case.  S.L.P.  1003-04 of  1998  have been filed against the said judgment and  the judgment in CWP 6477 of 1995.  Another judgment was rendered on  30th  February, 1997 in CWP 17192 of 1996 following  the judgment  in  Tilak Raj Guptas Case.  Against  that,  Civil Appeal  No.  2104 of 1998 has been preferred.  12.  Just  as the  first  petitioner in CWP 7122 of 1988 filed a  petition for punishing the Government and the officials for contempt, several other teachers also filed applications for punishing the  Government and the officials for contempt.  Some of the teachers  filed  proceedings for execution of the orders  in the  writ petitions.  The proceedings in contempt were  also treated as execution proceedings.  All such proceedings were dismissed  by orders dated 21st May, 1997.  Against the said orders,  the aggrieved teachers have filed S.L.P.  944-51 of 1998  and  S.L.P.   No.1008-1011 of 1998.  As  the  question involved  in  all these proceedings is the same,  they  were heard together.  II Common Question 13.  The common question which  arises  for decision in all these matters is  whether the teachers/masters/mistresses working in different schools in  the  State of Haryana are automatically entitled to  the higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on and from the date  of  their acquiring the academic qualifications  (Post Graduation)  prescribed  for the post of  Lecturer.   Some teachers are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4304/98 filed by the  State  of Haryana while several groups of teachers  are petitioners  in  SLPs  referred to above and  appellants  in Civil  Appeal  No.2104/98.  It is better that in  the  first instance  we  advert to the relevant rules and circulars  in order  to  answer the question raised.  III  Service  Rules, Government Circulars and Policy Letters

     14.   Before the formation of the State of Haryana  in 1966,  the position of the teachers in the schools in Punjab was  governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class  III, School Cadre Rules,1955.  They were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Punjab.  The expression   ‘Service  was  defined  to  mean  the   Punjab Educational Service, Class III - School Cadre.  Rule 10 read that members of the service would be entitled to such scales of  pay as may be authorized by the Government from time  to time  and  the scales of pay then in force as  specified  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

Appendix  A  against each post.  Appendix A set out  the number  of sanctioned posts (permanent and temporary), scale of pay and the designation of posts.  The column setting out the  designation of the post referred only to  Head-masters, Masters,  Science  Masters, Agricultural  Masters,  Language teachers,  Art  &  Craft teachers in the  Mens  Branch  and similarly  Head Mistress, Mistresses, Language teachers etc. in the Womens Branch.  What is to be noted is that Appendix 1963-64,  did not refer to any post designated as le cturer. 15.   It  is  not  in dispute that for  the  first  time  in 1963-64,  the  posts of lecturers in the school  cadre  were created  when  Higher Secondary schools were  established  . Before that, there were only three types of schools, namely, primary  upto  4th  class, middle upto 8th  class  and  High School  upto  10th  class.   When  the  category  of  Higher Secondary  schools upto 11th class was introduced, the posts of  lecturers were also created.  The scales of pay for  the posts of lecturers and the qualifications prescribed for the same  were fixed by Executive instructions as they were  not governed by the Punjab Educational Service Rules referred to above.   Till  1.2.1983  there were two scales  of  pay  for lecturers  -  one  being  lower for  those  who  had  passed M.A./M.Sc  in  3rd Division and the other being  higher  for those who had passed M.A./M.Sc in 1st and 2nd Division.  The two  scales  were  later revised from 1.2.1983 when  it  was decided  that only persons with M.A./M.Sc/M.Com.  in 1st  or 2nd  Division would be appointed as Lecturers.  With  effect from 19.3.1985 it was further decided that only persons with at  least 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc/M.Com.  would be  appointed as  Lecturers.   That is evident from a copy of  the  letter No.15/38-05-E-43  dated  1.5.85  issued by the  Director  of Secondary  Education,  Haryana to all Sub-divisions  in  the State.   (vide  Page  69  in  Vol.   II  in  C.A.   4304/90) Subsequently,  in 1998, the Governor of Haryana framed rules under  Article  309  of the Constitution known  as  Haryana State  Education  Lecturer  School Cadre  (Group-C)  Service Rules  1998  regulating  the recruitment and  conditions  of service  of  persons appointed to the Haryana  State  School Education  Lecturers School Cadre.  Thus it is seen that the post   of  Lecturer  was  never   governed  by  the   Punjab Educational  Service  Class III School Cadre Rules  and  was always  governed  by  a separate set of  rules.   As  stated earlier,  Appendix  A  to the Punjab  Educational  Service Class  III  School Cadre Rules did not include the  post  of Lecturer at any time.  16.  Strong reliance is placed by the teachers  upon  the  letter dated 23.7.1957  issued  by  the Government  of  Punjab before State  Re-organization.   That letter  was  issued by the Government after considering  the recommendations made by the Pay Revision Committee appointed to  examine the revision of scales of pay of the subordinate services   and  removal  of   anomalies  occasioned  by  the piecemeal  revision  of scales of pay of certain classes  of the non-gazetted Government servants.  According to the said letter it was decided that existing scales of pay of certain categories  of posts should with effect from 1st May 1957 be revised  as shown in the statement enclosed.  Paragraph 3 of the   letter   pertained  to   teachers  in  the   Education Department.   17.   The  relevant part of the  letter  reads thus:   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

in Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training.

     Category ‘B

     Group I Matrics with ASIC training (including J.S.Ts).

     Group  II J.S.Ts (including Assistant Mistresses  with B.A.  inter Matric Plus J.A.V.  Training.

     Group III (I) Shastries:

     (ii)  Gianis, Prabhakar, Drawing Masters and Craftsman Certificate Holders

     (iii) Munshi Fazils

     (iv)  S.Ts  including S.Vs with training  in  Physical Education.

     Group  IV:  Untrained teachers with qualification like B.Coms, B.  Sc.  (Agriculture) etc.

           categories  of  In addition  there  are  similar special  posts, such as Headmasters/Headmistresses  schools, with District Inspectors/Inspectoresses of qualifications of category ‘A above.

     Teachers  in  these categories, regardless of men  and women cadres, should carry the following scale of pay:

     Category  ‘A  Rs.110-8-190/10-250, with higher  start for M.A.  or M.Sc as at present.  The existing percentage of posts    fixed   by   Government     for   the   scale    of Rs.110-8-190-10-250   and   Rs.250-10-300    should   remain unchanged at 85% and 15% respectively.

     Category ‘B LowerRs.60-4-80-5-120

     Middle Rs.120-5-175

     Upper Rs.140-10-250

     With  a  view  to providing incentives,  it  has  been decided  that posts falling in these groups should be in the following percentages:

     Group I Lower Scale - 85%

     Middle Scale - 15%

     15%  of teachers in this group should straight way  be promoted to the middle scale by selection based on seniority and merit, while the rest should be given the lower scale.

     18.   There is no reference in the letter to the  post of Lecturer as there was no such post in the school cadre at that  time.   19.  With effect from 1.11.1966, the State  of Haryana came into existence.  Earlier there was an Education Commission  popularly  known as 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

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 5th  January 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  J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V.   etc.   Sl.   No.2 pertains  to  Masters/Mistresses (Trained  Graduates).   Sl. No.3  relates  to  Lecturers  (Post  Graduates).   The  N.B. reads:  The lecturers will be given one advance increment as soon  as  they  attain professional  training.   Sl.   No.4 refers to Head masters/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 in Sl.No.1 and Sl.No.2  were automatically  entitled  to become lecturers or entitled  to the sca les 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.   21. Learned  counsel  appearing for some of the teachers  placed before  us  policy  letters dated  19.2.1979  and  20.9.1979 issued  by  the  Government  of Punjab and  wanted  to  draw inference  therefrom that the principle of pay being  linked to  qualifications  as  recommended  by  Kothari  Commission report  has been implemented in the State of Punjab and  the same  inference should be drawn with reference to the  State of  Haryana also.  We are unable to accept that  contention. 22.   In  so far 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,   the  9th  March1990   sent  by  the  Financial Commissioner  &  Secretary  to Government  Haryana,  Finance Department   to  the  Commissioner  &  Secretary  to   Govt. Haryana,   Education  Department.   That   letter  makes   a reference to the Circular letter dated 23rd July 1957 issued by  the Punjab Government to which we have already  adverted in  detail.   The  letter  makes   also  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 29th  February,  1980  by virtue of which the  letter  dated 5.1.68 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  29.4.87 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

of  Para  3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23rd  July 1957  or any subsequent letter or Notification issued by the Haryana  Government  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  post  graduate 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 teache    rs/masters/mistresses some of whom are respondents Civil   Appeal  No.4304  of  1990   and  the  others   being petitioners  in in      No.210 4/98.  S.L.Ps and  appellants in  Civil  Appeal on IVRulings referred to by  counsel  both sides.

     24.  Some of the judgments cited relate to teachers in the  State  of Punjab and others relate to teachers  in  the State  of  Haryana .  We think it better to refer  to  cases relating  to the teachers in the two States separately.   We should not be understood as holding that the position in the State  of Punjab is different from the position in the State of  Haryana.   It  may happen to be the same but we  do  not express any opinion in this case on the situation prevailing in the State of Punjab.  We are concerned here only with the teachers  in  the State of Haryana.  In order to  appreciate the ratio of the rulings relied on by counsel on both sides, we  refer to the cases relating to the teachers in the State of  Punjab separately and the cases relating to teachers  in the State of Haryana separately.

     A.  Cases relating to teachers in the State of Punjab.

     25.   The  earliest case arose with reference  to  the composite  State  of Punjab before the Re-organization.   In that case, the Government letter dated 23.7.1957 to which we have  made reference in extenso earlier was considered.   It cannot be disputed that the principle laid down in that case will  apply equally to the State of Punjab and the State  of Haryana  in  so far as the interpretation of the  Government letter  dated  23.7.1957  is concerned.   (i)  Kirpal  Singh (1975)  4 S.C.C.  740 26.  The case was reported as State of Punjab  &  Another  versus Kirpal Singh  Bhatia  and  others (1975)  4  S.C.C.  740.  The respondents in that  case  were teachers  in  the former State of Pepsu which merged in  the State  of Punjab on 1.11.1956.  The teachers claimed revised scales of pay as well as the posts of Masters on the grounds that  they had taken degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or  its equivalent  and  that the Government letter dated  23.7.1957 entitled  them to the posts of Masters to the extent of  25% of the vacancies.  The High Court accepted the contention of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

the  teachers  and upheld their claim.  The appeal filed  by the State of Punjab was dismissed by this Court which agreed with  the view taken by the High Court.  After referring  to the  Government  letter dated 23.7.57 in detail, this  Court referred  also  to Rules 7 and 10 of the Punjab  Educational Service  , Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 which provided method  of recruitment and the entitlement to such scales of pay  as  may  be authorized by the Government from  time  to time.   This  Court  held that the higher scale of  pay  was effective  either from the date when the teachers passed the examination  of  Bachelor of Training or its  equivalent  or 1.5.57  whichever  was later.  Referring to a  letter  dated 7.11.58,  this  Court observed that the teachers  could  not claim  vacancies by promotion exceeding 25% and their  claim for  appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not  merely their seniority but also their merit.  The Court pointed  out  that while the earlier letter dated  July  23, 1957  fixed  the scales of pay on the basis of the  academic qualification, the s ubsequent letter dated November 7, 1958 recogniz       ed the right of promotion to 25%.  the  posts of  Masters to the extent of 716 (ii)Gurpal Tuli 1984 (Supp) S.C.C.   27.   The next case relating to Punjab schools  was Gurpal  Tuli  and others versus State of Punjab  and  others 1984 (Supp) S.C.C.  716.  This Court considered the Circular letter  dated  29.7.67 issued by the State of Punjab  giving effect to the recommendations of the Kothari Commission from 1.11.1966  in  respect  of teachers in  Government  schools. Paragraph  2 of the Circular letter referred to lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools etc.  and it was specified that the number  of posts in the Lecturers Grade would be 1571  i.e. 742  posts  for  the  existing   school  Lecturers  and  829 additional  posts  for  other Masters/Mistresses  with  post graduate  qualifications.  The appellants before this  Court contended  that they were employed as Masters and Mistresses in Higher Secondary Schools run by the Punjab Government and possessed  post graduate qualifications.  They claimed  that they  were entitled to either of the higher grades set forth in  paragraph 2 of the said letter dated 29.7.67  pertaining to  lecturers.   This Court negatived their  contention  and observed :  From what has gone before it is clear that they can  legitimately claim the benefit of those grades only  if they  are  appointed to the posts of Lecturer.  And they  do not  dispute  that they are not incumbents of those  posts. The  appellants in that case placed reliance on the judgment in  State of Punjab & Another versus Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others (1975) 4 S.C.C.  740 (Supra) but this Court held that it  was of no assistance to the appellants.  The  contention of  the  appellants that on the principle of equal pay  for equal  work they were entitled to the grades applicable  to the  lecturers, this Court held that the grades specified in Paragraph  2  of  the  circular letter  dated  29.7.67  were applicable  only to those who specifically held the posts of lecturers.   Thus  the contention of the teachers that  they were  entitled to the scales of pay applicable to  lecturers on  their  acquiring  post graduate  qualifications  or  the qualifications  prescribed  for  the post of  lecturers  was expressly negatived.  (iii) Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers Union (1988) 2 S.C.C.407

     28.   The  third  ruling was Punjab  Higher  Qualified Teachers  Union  and  Others etc.  etc.   versus  State  of Punjab  and  others etc.  etc.  (1988) 2 S.C.C.   407.   The only  controversy  in  that case was  whether  JBT  teachers falling  under  Category ‘B Group-II were not  entitled  to higher  pay  merely  on their acquiring  higher  educational

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

qualifications  of  B.A.   , B.T./B.A./B.Ed etc.   but  that gaining  professional  experience of JST/JAV was  essential. After  construing  the  relevant clauses in  the  Government circular  the  Court held that it was not necessary for  the teachers  to  gain  any experience of training  and  it  was sufficient  if they got the qualifications of B.T.  or B.Ed. to  be  entitled to the higher scales of pay  admissible  to teachers  in  Category  ‘B  Group-I with  effect  from  the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification.  This Court  had no occasion in that case to consider whether  the teachers  were entitled to get the scales of pay  applicable to  lecturers  automatically  on their  acquiring  the  post graduate qualifications.  (iv) Baij Nath (1976) 8 SC.C.  516 29.   The last of the cases chronologically cited before  us was  Baij  Nath and others versus .  The  appellants  before this  Court  approached the High Court of Punjab  &  Haryana seeking  a direction to the State of Punjab and Director  of Public  Education  to pay them according to the scale  meant for lecturers on their acquiring post graduate qualification in  terms  of  Government  letter dated  23.7.57  read  with Government  letter  dated 20.9.1979.  The Division Bench  of the  High  Court negatived their prayer and they  filed  the appeal  in  this Court after obtaining Special Leave.   This Court allowed the appeal and directed the Government to pass an  appropriate order relating to the appellants within  six weeks  from  the date of the judgment and make available  to them all consequential financial benefits within eight weeks thereafter.   Learned  counsel  for   the  teachers   placed reliance  on that judgment and contended that the prayer  of the appellants in that case made in the writ petition before the  High  Court was fully granted by this Court in  appeal. Reliance  was placed on Paragraph 7 of the judgment which is in  the following terms:  But this is not all in as much as the  letter of 23.7.1957, read with that of 20.9.1979,  thus permit  higher  pay scale for postgraduates;  and  that  too from  the  date of acquisition of the same, as held by  this Court  in Chaman Lal case.  We would, therefore, state  that the  teachers in the High Schools of Punjab, who acquire the postgraduate  qualification, became entitled to such  higher pay  from  the date of acquisition of the qualification,  as was  contemplated  in  the letter of 23.7.1957.  It  may  be stated  that the subject-matter of Gurpal Tuli versus  State of  Punjab , referred by Shri Yadav for the respondents,  is different and it has not stated anything contrary to what we have held.

     30.   On  the  other hand, relying on  the  very  same passage  quoted  above,  learned counsel for  the  State  of Haryana  contended  that this Court had only held  that  the teachers  who  had acquired the postgraduate  qualifications became  entitled  to higher pay which meant the  higher  pay applicable  to  Masters.  It was argued that this Court  did not  hold that the appellants in that case were entitled  to higher  scales  of  pay  applicable to  lecturers  on  their acquiring  the postgraduate qualifications.  31.  A  reading of  the judgment as reported could not disclose the  correct position  as to what was held in that case.  Hence, we  sent for  the  records  in  that   appeal  namely,  Civil  Appeal No.4544/96.   It  is  seen therefrom that  pursuant  to  the judgment  of this Court, a decretal order was issued by this Court on the following terms:

     That  the judgment and order dated the 29th May, 1992 of  the  High  Court of Punjab & Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in C.W.P.   No.4646  of 1992 be and is hereby set aside and  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

place  thereof an order allowing C.W.P.  No.4646 of 1992 and directing   that  an  appropriate   order  relating  to  the appellants  herein shall be passed by the respondents herein in  the  light of the above statement within six weeks  from this  the  19th  day of March 1996  and  that  consequential financial benefits shall be made available to the appellants within eight weeks thereafter, be and is hereby substituted;

     2.  That the parties herein shall bear their own costs of this appeal in this Court

     32.   Thereafter  the  appellants in the  said  appeal filed  Contempt  Petition  No.   196/97  for  punishing  the respondents  therein for committing contempt as  respondents did  not  pay  to the appellants salary on  the  pay  scales applicable  to  lecturers.  That petition for  contempt  was contested  by the Punjab State Government and the officials. It  was stated in the counter- affidavit that the appellants were  entitled  only to the higher pay scales applicable  to the  Masters.   It was also stated in the counter  affidavit that  the judgment of this Court in the appeal granted  only the  higher  pay  scales applicable to Masters and  did  not grant  to the appellants higher pay scales applicable to the lecturers.  That contention of the Punjab Government and the officials  in  the  contempt petition was accepted  by  this Court and the contempt petition was dismissed by order dated 14.7.1997.   Thus it is clear that in the above appeal  also this  Court did not hold that the teachers were entitled  to higher  pay scales applicable to lecturers automatically  on their   acquiring   postgraduate   qualifications   or   the qualifications  prescribed for the posts of lecturers.   33. Thus  it is seen that even with reference to the teachers in the  State  of  Punjab  higher   pay  scales  applicable  to lecturers  were  not granted.  No ruling of this  Court  was cited  before  us  holding that they would  be  entitled  to higher   pay  scales  applicable  to  lecturers   on   their automatically   acquiring     postgraduate   qualifications. However,  as stated earlier, we do not decide that  question in  these cases as these relate to teachers in the State  of Haryana  and not teachers in the State of Punjab.  B.  Cases relating to teachers in the State of Haryana.

     (i) Kirpal Singh (1975) 4 S.C.C.  740

     34.   It  is  needless to refer to the  earliest  case namely,  State  of  Punjab and another versus  Kirpal  Singh Bhatia  and  others (supra) once again.  As stated  earlier, the  ruling  in  that  case will undoubtedly  apply  to  the teachers  in  the  State  of  Haryana   in  so  far  as  the interpretation  of the circular dated 23.7.57 is  concerned. (ii)  Chaman Lal (1987) 2 S.C.C.113 35.  The next case is of Chaman  Lal  and others etc.  versus State of  Haryana  etc. (1987)  2 S.C.C.  113.  The appellants in the appeal  before this  Court were all trained graduates possessing B.Ed.   or B.T.   Degrees  in  addition to B.A.   Degrees.   They  were teachers  in the Government schools in the State of Haryana. They  acquired the Degree qualifications subsequent to their joining  service.  Some of them acquired such qualifications before  5.9.1979  and  some  after  that  date.   After  the Circular  dated  23.7.57  issued  by  the  composite  Punjab Government,  the  State  of Haryana had passed an  order  on 5.1.68  revising  the  scales  of   pay  with  effect   from 1.12.1967.   Thereafter, teachers who had acquired B.T.   or B.   Ed.   Qualifications were held entitled to  the  higher scales  of  pay  since   they  acquired  the  qualifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

irrespective  of  the dates when they were adjusted  against the  post of Masters.  On September 5, 1979, the  Government of Haryana issued an order imposing conditions for the grant of  Masters  grade to unadjusted J.B.T.  teachers  who  had acquired   B.T./B.Ed.   qualifications.    The  High   Court interpreted  the  said order of the Government to mean  that the  teachers  who  had  acquired   the  B.T.   or  B.   Ed. Qualification  subsequent  to  1.12.1967 and  before  5.9.79 would  be entitled to the higher grade but with effect  from 5.9.79  only  and that those who acquired the  qualification subsequent  to 5.9.79 were not entitled to the higher grade. According to the judgment of the High Court the order of the Government  dated 5.1.68 did away with the principle of  the 23.7.57  order  that the teachers who acquired B.T.   or  B. Ed.   Qualification  got  the  higher   grade  and  that   a concession  was  shown  in 1979 enabling  the  teachers  who acquired  such  qualifications between 1968 and 1979 to  get the higher scale from 1979.  That view of the High Court was upset by this Court in the above case.  This Court held that the  order of the Government dated 5.1.1968 must be read  in the light of the order dated 23.7.1957 and the report of the Kothari Commission which was accepted.  This Court said that there  could be no doubt that the Government never  intended to  retract  from the principle that teachers acquiring  the B.T.   or  B.   Ed.    Qualifications  thereafter  would  be entitled  to  higher grade with effect from  the  respective dates  of  their acquiring the qualifications.   This  Court also   held  that  the  order   dated  5.9.79   was   indeed superfluous.  In that view, the appeal filed by the teachers was  allowed  and the Court directed the Government and  the      officials to give the higher grade admissible to to all the  teachers who had acquired the B.T./B.Ed.  qualification Masters  qualifications.   with effect from their  acquiring the  respective  (iii)Wazir Singh 1995 Supp (3) S.C.C.   697 36.   The  next  judgment  of this Court  in  the  order  of Chronology  is  Wazir  Singh JBT Teacher and  others  versus State of Haryana through its Secretary, Education Department and  others  1995 Supp (3) S.C.C.  697.  In that  case,  the Court  had to consider the policy instructions issued by the Haryana Government on 9.3.1990 whereby it retracted from the earlier  principle  that teachers acquiring the B.T.  or  B. Ed.   Degree  would be entitled to higher grade with  effect from   the   respective  dates  of   their   acquiring   the qualifications.    This   Court  held    that   the   policy instructions   issued  by  the   Government  would   operate prospectively and any teacher acquiring the qualification of B.T/B.Ed  would not get the higher pay scales  automatically on  acquiring  such  qualifications.  This Court  also  made clear that those who had acquired such qualifications before 9.3.1990  would be entitled to get the benefit of Para 2  of the  Punjab Government Letter dated 23.7.57.  (v) Ravi  Bala 1997)  1  S.C.C.  267 37.  In State of Haryana  and  Another versus  Ravi  Bala  and  others (1997) 1  S.C.C.   267,  the principle  laid down in Wazir Singh versus State of  Haryana (supra)  was  reiterated and the claim of teachers  who  had acquired  the higher qualifications after 9.3.90 for  higher scales  of  pay  was rejected.  38.  Thus it is  seen,  that there  is  no judgment of this Court holding  that  teachers acquiring  postgraduate  qualifications   or  qualifications prescribed  for the post of lecturers would automatically be entitled  to  scales of pay applicable to the  lecturers  on acquiring  such  qualifications without being  appointed  as lecturers  in accordance with the rules.  V.  Ruling of  the Full  Bench  of the High Court of Punjab &  Haryana  Bhagwan Dutt Sharma ILR 1988 (2) Pg.246

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

     39.   In  Bhagwan Dutt Sharma versus State of  Haryana I.L.R.   1988 (2) Punjab and Haryana P.246 the question  was whether  the  teachers  who acquired the B.T.   or  B.   Ed. Qualification  would be entitled to the higher scales of pay since  they  acquired the qualification irrespective of  the dates  when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters. A  Division Bench of the High Court in C.W.P.  No.   7553/76 negatived the claim of the teachers.  That writ petition was one  of a bunch of cases including C.W.P.  1220/78 which had also  been  disposed  of  by   the  common  judgment.    The petitioner  in C.W.P.  1220/78 took the matter in appeal  to this Court and succeeded.  The judgment of this Court was in Chaman  Lal  and  others versus State of  Haryana  (1987)  3 S.C.C.   113.  We have already referred to that judgment  in detail.   The  correctness of the judgment of  the  Division Bench in C.W.P.  7553/76 was referred to a larger Bench by a Single  Judge  of that Court probably before the matter  was disposed  of  by this Court in Chaman Lals case  (supra)  . The  Full  Bench  after  referring to  Kirpal  Singhs  case (supra)  and Chaman Lals case (supra) held that in view  of the  decision  of  the Supreme Court in  Chaman  Lals  case (supra)  the  reference was to be answered in favour of  the writ  petitioners  and accordingly the Full Bench held  that the  writ petitioners were entitled to the Masters pay from the  date they acq uired the qualification.  40.  Thus,  the Full  Bench had no occasion to consider the question whether the  teachers  would  be  entitled  to  the  scales  of  pay applicable to the lecturers automatically on their acquiring postgraduate  qualifications.   It cannot by any stretch  of imagination  be contended that the ratio of the decision  of the  Full Bench was that those who had acquired postgraduate qualifications  were automatically entitled to pay scales of lecturers.   In  the judgment under appeal in  Civil  Appeal NO.4304/90,  the  High  Court has merely recorded  that  the parties  counsel agreed that the writ petition was squarely covered  by  the judgment of the Full Bench in Bhagwan  Dutt Sharmas  case  (supra)  and ordered that there will  be  an order  in  terms of the ratio given in the Full Bench  case. According  to the learned counsel for the teachers, the said direction  to  pass an order in terms of the ratio given  in the  Full Bench case would tentamount to upholding the claim of  the  writ petitioners that they were entitled to  higher scales  of pay applicable to lecturers.  There is absolutely no  merit  in  this  contention.   No  such  ratio  can   be discovered  from the judgment of the Full Bench.  VI.  Civil Original Contempt Petition No.649/89 on the file of the High Court

     41.  In view of the above position, the claim of Kamal Singh  Saharwat who was the first writ petitioner before the High  Court in C.W.P.  7122/88 that the concerned  officials should  be  punished  for contempt as he was  not  paid  his salary  on  the pay scales applicable to the  lecturers  was unsustainable.   The contempt petition was on the face of it without  any  merit and there was no justification  for  the High  Court  in  issuing  notice on the  said  petition  for contempt.   Of  course  the High Court had not come  to  any decision   or   expressed  any   opinion  in  the   contempt proceedings  but the fact that the High Court issued  notice to  the respondents in the contempt petition shows that  the High  Court considered that there was a prima facie case for proceeding  under the Contempt of Courts Act.  No doubt  the respondents  in  the contempt petition could  have  appeared before  the  High Court and filed a reply pointing out  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

there  was  no  question  of any contempt as  there  was  no disobedience  of  the order of the High Court in as much  as the  ratio  of  the  Full Bench did  not  entitle  the  writ petitioners  to  higher pay scales applicable to  lecturers. Instead,  the  State Government and the Director  of  Public Instructions  came to this Court with an appeal against  the order of the High Court in the writ petition.  As the appeal has  been  pending from 1990, no purpose will be  served  by taking  a  technical  view of the matter and  directing  the appellants  to appear before the High Court and contest  the proceeding  in  contempt.   VII.  Conclusions  42.   In  the result,  we have no hesitation to hold that the teachers are not  entitled  to  claim  higher pay on the  scales  of  pay applicable  to  lecturers  on their  acquiring  postgraduate qualification without being appointed as lecturers.  Learned counsel  for  the State of Haryana has categorically  stated that  higher pay on the scales applicable to the Masters was already  being paid to the teachers and that at any rate the Government  has  absolutely no objection to pay the same  if they  were entitled thereto in accordance with the law  laid down  by  this Court.  We have already referred to the  fact that  the  only  person  to whom higher pay  on  the  scales applicable  to the lecturers was being paid was Kamal  Singh Saharwat the first petitioner in C..W.P.  7122/88 before the High  Court.   At  the time of grant of  leave,  this  Court passed  an  order  in the stay petition that  if  the  State ultimately  succeeds,  it  will be entitled  to  appropriate relief.   Consequently,  the State Government, appellant  in Civil  Appeal  No.4304/90 is entitled to recover  back  from Kamal  Singh  Saharwat  the first respondent in  the  appeal whatever  has been paid over and above his entitlement.   It will  be  open  to  the   Government  to  take   appropriate proceedings,  therefor, if it decides to recover the  excess after  such  a  long lapse of time.   Similarly,  the  State Government  is entitled to recover from such other  persons, if  any,  to  whom  excess payments  have  been  made.   The proceedings  in  Contempt Petition, namely,  Civil  Original Contempt  Petition  No.649 of 1989 on the file of  the  High Court  of Punjab & Haryana requires to be dismissed.  If  it is  still  pending on the file of the High Court,  a  formal order  of dismissal may be passed by the High Court pursuant to  this judgment.  Civil Appeal No.4304 of 1990 is  allowed on  the above terms.  43.  S.L.P.  Nos.1005-06/98,  1002/98, 10080/95,  1000/98  and 1003-04/98 as well as  Civil  Appeal No.2104/98  are dismissed.  44.  The view taken by the  High Court  in  the subsequent contempt/execution proceedings  is correct   and  consequently  S.L.P   Nos.    944-51/98   and 1008-09/98 are dismissed.  45.  The parties shall bear their respective costs.