http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: WAZIR SINGH,JBT TEACHER & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANATHROUGH ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATIONDEPARTME

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1995

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  889            JT 1995 (7)   404  1995 SCALE  (5)641

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.Venkataswami, J.      Leave granted.      I.A. No. 1/95 for impleadment is allowed.      The appellants  are teachers  in Government  schools in the State  of Haryana.  The  appellants  were  appointed  as (J.B.T.) teachers  in the  schools as  they did  not possess B.T./B.ED qualification  at the  time of their appointments. However, they  acquired B.T./B.ED degree on various dates as mentioned in  page 9  of the  S.L.P. Paper  Book and also at page 53  (so  far  as  newly  impleaded  appellant  No.8  is concerned). They  moved the  High Court  of Punjab & Haryana under Article  226/227 of  the Constitution of India for the issue of  writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give them the  higher grade admissible to the Masters with effect from  respective   dates  of   their   acquiring   B.T./B.ED qualifications and  they also  prayed for  issue of  writ of Mandamus   to    the   respondents    to    implement    the decision/direction of  this Court  in the case of Chaman Lal vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987 (3) SCC 113.      In response  to the notice of motion issued by the High Court, written  statement on behalf of respondents was filed and therein  it was  brought to the notice of the Court that the erstwhile  Punjab Government’s  Instructions dated  July 23, 1957  on the  basis of  which the petitioners/appellants rested their claims, stood superseded and no more applicable to the  employees of  the Haryana  Government. It  was  also stated in  the written  statement that a policy decision was taken by  the Government  of Haryana  in Finance  Department Letter No.7/2(i)/90-FRI dated March 9, 1990 stating that the pay-scales admissible  to the  Masters, that is, B.A., B.ED. would be  given to  such teachers  who have  been  appointed against the  posts for which the qualification is B.A. B.ED. In the  light of the written statement and also applying the earlier decision  of the  High Court  in C.W.P.  No.14736 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

1991 dated December 1,1992, the learned Judges held that the appellants were  not entitled  to the  reliefs prayed for as they were  never appointed  against  the  post  of  Masters. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the present special leave to appeal is preferred by the appellants.      Learned counsel  for the  appellants strenuously  urged before us that the ratio laid down by this Court in 1987 (3) SCC 113  (supra) will  apply in  full force  to the facts of this case  and, therefore,  the appellants would be entitled to succeed in the present appeal.      Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in  Chaman Lal’s  case this  Court was  considering the scope of  the letter  dated July  23,  1957  issued  by  the composite Punjab Government in the light of subsequent order of Haryana  Government dated 5.9.79. However, in the present case the letter dated 23.7.57 stood superseded by the latest policy instructions  issued by the Haryana Govt. on 9,3.1990 and therefore,  the judgment  in 1987 (3) SCC 113 will be of no avail.  He also  invited  our  attention  to  the  policy instructions contained in the letter dated 9.3.1990 which is Annexure III to the special Leave Petition found at page 44.      But for  the policy  instructions  now  issued  by  the Haryana Government  on 9.3.1990, the ruling of this Court in Chaman Lal’s case would have definitely applied to the facts of this  case. In  Chaman Lal’s  case this  Court considered both  the   letter  dated  23.7.1957  and  the  Order  dated 5.9.1979. While  considering the  scope of  the  letter  and order, this  Court also took note of certain admissions made by  the  Government  during  that  period  and  observed  as follows:      "It is  thus seen that from 1957 to 1980      whenever  the  question  arose,  it  was      always  accepted   that   teachers   who      acquired the  B.T. or B.ED qualification      would be entitled to higher grade of pay      as   soon    as   they    acquired   the      qualification irrespective  of the dates      when  they  were  adjusted  against  the      posts of Masters. The adjustment against      the posts  of Masters  was relevant  for      the purpose of seniority in the posts of      Masters and  for the  further purpose of      promotion from  that post. So far as the      scale of  pay was concerned irrespective      of  adjustment   against  the   post  of      Master, a  teacher was always held to be      entitled to the higher scale of pay from      the date  of the acquisition of the B.T.      or B.ED qualification.      2.   On   September    5,   1979,    the      Government of Haryana issued an order in      the following words:           Sanction of the Governor of Haryana      is hereby  accorded w.e.f.  September 5,      1979 of  the grant  of Masters  grade to      unadjusted JBT  teachers who have passed      B.A./B.ED.  subject   to  the  following      conditions:-      (i)  That the expenditure involved would      be met  from the  savings of the current      year revised sanctioned estimates.      (ii) That these  teachers  will  not  be      allowed any  seniority in  the cadre  of      Masters.      (iii) That  it will not form a precedent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    for future.      (iv) That the award of Master’s grade to      the concerned teachers would be personal      to them.      This order  of  the  Government  is  now      sought to be interpreted and it has been      so interpreted  by  the  High  Court  of      Punjab and Haryana in the judgment under      appeal  that   those  teachers  who  had      acquired the  B.T. or B.ED qualification      subsequent to December 1, 1967 (the date      on which the 1968 order came into force)      and before  September 5,  1979 would  be      entitled to  the higher  grade but  with      effect from  September 5,  1979 only and      that    those     who    acquired    the      qualification subsequent to September 5,      1979 would not be entitled to the higher      grade. 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  B.T.  or      B.ED qualification should get the higher      grade and that a concession was shown in      1979 enabling  the teachers who acquired      the B.T.  or B.ED  qualification between      1968 and  1979 to  get the  higher scale      from  1979.  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 case was argued in the High Court      and in  the Supreme  Court there was not      the slightest whisper that the principle      had  been  departed  from  in  the  1968      order. In  fact the 1968 order expressly      stated that  the Government had accepted      the  Kothari   Commission’s  report   in      regard to  scales of  pay and as already      pointed out  by us  the main  feature of      the  Kothari   Commission’s  report   in      regard to  scales of 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  B.T.  or  B.ED  would  be      entitled to the higher grade with effect      from  the   respective  dates  of  their      acquiring that  qualification. The  1975

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    order was indeed superfluous."      In the present revision of pay scale of Govt. employees teaching Personnel  of the Education Department (hereinafter called the ‘policy of the Government’), in unequivocal terms the Government  have expressed  their intention  to  retract from the  earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.ED  degree would  be entitled  to the higher grade with effect from  the respective  dates of  their acquiring  that qualification. Relevant portions in the policy of Government dated 9.3.1990 read as follows:      "I am  directed to  refer  to  composite      Punjab Govt. Finance Department circular      No. 5056-FR-11/57  dated the  23rd July,      1957 on  the subject  noted above, which      contains  the   details  regarding   the      revision of  the pay  scales of  various      categories   of   subordinate   services      (including   teachers)   done   on   the      recommendations   made    by   the   Pay      Revisions Committee,  then appointed  to      examine  this   matter.  While  evolving      revised  pay   scales  in   respect   of      different categories  of teachers in the      Education Department, in para 3 of above      mentioned circular, two broad categories      namely, category  ‘A’ and category‘B’ of      teachers  were   mentioned,  inter  alia      laying down the requirements of academic      qualifications in  their cases. It would      not have been intended by the Government      that  on   their  acquisition   of  High      academic     qualification,      various      categories  of  teachers  in  the  lower      grades shall  automatically be placed in      the different  higher grade commensurate      with   their   academic   qualification.      Normally, pay scales of various category      of   posts   in   any   Department   are      sanctioned keeping  in view  the minimum      qualifications   required    for    each      category of  posts, besides  the  duties      prescribed  for   them.  Similarly,  the      teaching  posts   are   sanctioned   for      various educational institutions keeping      in view  the subjects  and classes,  the      incumbents of  these posts  are required      to   teach   and   for   that   specific      qualifications  are  prescribed  in  the      service rule  as well  at  the  time  of      recruitment.  For  example,  if  a  B.A.      B.ED.   pass    candidate    with    the      qualifications  of  Matric  J.B.T.  also      applied for  the post  of Matric  J.B.T.      and is  taken into  service on the basis      of higher  qualification, he/she  cannot      claim the  grade of  Master/Mistress but      will get  the sanctioned scale of pay of      teacher   meant    for   Matric   J.B.T.      Similarly, if  a Matric  J.B.T.  teacher      improves his  qualification  during  the      course of service and acquires degree of      B.A. B.ED  or of  language teacher  i.e.      O.T. Giani or Prabhakar, he cannot claim      the scale of Master i.e. B.A. B.ED or of      language teacher  unless he is appointed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    as Master against the post of Master and      language teacher  against  the  post  of      language teacher  for which  the minimum      qualifications are  B.A. B.ED  and  O.T.      (Giani or Prabhakar) respectively.      2.   As the  instructions  contained  in      paragraph  3   of  the  above  mentioned      letter dated  23rd July,  1957  did  not      bring out the above mentioned intentions      of the  Government in unambiguous terms,      it    has    resulted    in    different      interpretations i.e.  automatic grant of      higher scales  of pay  on the  basis  of      qualifications irrespective of number of      posts available  in  the  Department  in      that category. ... .... it was never the      intention of  the  State  Government  to      undertake the continuing heavy financial      burden that  has devolved  on it because      of the  faulty  framing  of  the  above-      mentioned instructions.      (3 to 5 omitted)      6.   In order  to remove  the  confusion      being  created   by  misconstruing   the      intention of  the Government  the  whole      matter  has  been  reconsidered  by  the      State Government.  As a  result  of  the      reconsideration, the Governor of Haryana      is pleased  to clarify that the teachers      of  the  Education  Department  are  not      entitled to  be  placed  in  the  higher      scales of  pay in terms of para 2 of the      Punjab  Government   letter  No.5056-FR-      11/57/6600 dated  23rd July, 1957 or any      subsequent letters/notifications  issued      by the Haryana Government referred to in      the  preceding   paras,  which   letters      already  become   inoperative  on  their      improving/acquiring               higher      qualifications  during   the  course  of      their   service    automatically.    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      more      possession/acquiring      of      higher      qualifications  will  not  entitle  them      automatically  to   claim   higher   pay      scales.                          (emphasis supplied)"      From  the   above  extracts,   it  is  clear  that  the Government have altered their earlier policy and, therefore, the judgment  in Chaman Lal’s case will have no application. The appellants  who have  not acquired  the B.T./B.ED before 9.3.90 cannot,  therefore, claim the benefit of higher grade of pay automatically.      Learned counsel  for the  respondents frankly  conceded that all  those who  have acquired  B.T./B.ED before  9.3.90 would be  entitled to  get higher  scales of pay in terms of para 2  of the  composite  Punjab  Government  letter  dated 23.7.1957.      We find  that among  the appellants  5 of them, namely, appellants Nos.2,5,6,7  and 8  who have  acquired  B.T./B.ED prior to 9.3.90 would get the benefit and the others are not

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

entitled to  get the relief. To that extent mentioned above, the appeal succeeds.      In  order   to  prevent   avoidable   multiplicity   of litigation, we  make  it  clear  that  all  those  who  have acquired B.T./B.ED  before 9.3.90  would be  entitled to get the benefit  of para 2 of the Punjab Government Letter dated 23.7.1957 and those who have acquired B.T./B.ED subsequently are governed  by the  changed policy  of Haryana  Government dated 9.3.1990.  The appeal  is disposed  of accordingly. No costs.