Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Paul Verma And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 2009
CWP No. 11760 of 1989 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11760 of 1990
Date of decision 24.4.2009
Rajinder Paul Verma and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
Present: Mr. G.C.Dhuriwala ,Advocate for the petitioners
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents not to withdraw the benefit of revised pay scale of the post of Masters which have been granted to them while holding the post of teachers.
The petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers and during the course of service, they improved their qualifications by passing Gyani/ Prabhakar examinations and they were posted in the Middle and High Schools to teach the higher classes. It is alleged that the petitioners used to teach the higher classes and the State Government failed to give higher responsibility increment. The petitioners are having the qualifications equivalent to that of Master Cadre teaches because they are graduates in English. Vide order dated 20.9.1978 (P.1), respondent no.3 ordered that the pay scale of teachers who were promoted from the post of teachers to that CWP No. 11760 of 1989 2 of Masters be fixed in the scale of 220-500 on the next stage with the result that the petitioners were given one additional increment from the date of their promotion to the post of Masters. The pay of the petitioners was accordingly fixed. Vide order dated 5.3.1985 (P.7), the respondents no.4 decided to withdraw the increment already granted to the petitioners.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned State counsel at the outset has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1984 SC 901 and argued that the matter is squarely covered against the petitioners. According to the learned State counsel the petitioners are entitled to claim only that pay for the post against which they were appointed. Reliance is placed on paras 9 and 10 of the judgement which reads thus:
"9. It appears that several teachers filed writ petitions in the High Court claiming revised scales of pay on the ground that they had taken graduate degrees and, therefore, were entitled to the benefit of the grade mentioned against Category 'A' in the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. In opposition to the writ petitions, the State Government contended that the letter did not contemplate the grant of the grade to all teachers but only to teachers appointed as Masters. The High Court held the teachers entitled to the benefit of the revised grade, whether or not they had been appointed as Masters, because, in the opinion of the High Court, the qualifying criterion was the possession of a graduate degree. The judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia (AIR 1976 SC 2459) (supra). The State Government found it difficult, having CWP No. 11760 of 1989 3 regard to the prevailing burden on its financial resources, to extend the benefit of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 to the much wider section of teachers covered in consequence of the Court's judgment. Accordingly, the State Government issued Circular letter No. 9/9/79-FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979, paragraph 3 of which stated that in order to ensure that "these unintended and large financial implications do not continue arising in future" the whole matter had been reconsidered by the State Government and as a result the Government ordered that henceforth the teachers of the Education Department, would not automatically be entitled to placement in the higher scales of pay in terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 by the mere circumstance of their improving or acquiring higher qualifications in the course of their service. The rigour of the restriction was relaxed in some measure. Paragraph 3 said further :-
"However, in order to avoid discrimination between teachers who have already been 1904 allowed higher scales of pay on account of having improved their qualifications and those who have not yet been allowed this benefit even though they also possess higher qualifications it is decided that all teachers in the Education Department who have improved their qualifications before the issue of this letter may be allowed the benefit of higher scale of pay on the basis of their qualifications."
The benefit was not extended to those who were appointed or CWP No. 11760 of 1989 4 who had improved their qualifications after the issue of that Circular letter. The teachers continued to agitate for a more generous dispensation. The State Government then issued Circular letter No. 8937-5 ED. 1179/2659 dated September 20, 1979, which declared :-
"The implementation of the decision contained in Finance Department circular letter No. 9/9/79 FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979 to grant higher pay scales to the teachers on the basis of higher qualifications was kept pending for want of clarification on certain points from the Finance Department which has now become available and is reproduced below :-
1. The higher scale may be allowed from the date of passing the respective higher examination by the concerned teacher where this has already been done. However, actual payment at enhanced rates should commence from 12-2-79 and the payment of arrears accruing from the date of passing the examination till 13-2-1979 be restricted to the maximum for 38 months.
2. The benefit of the higher scale may be allowed from the date a particular teacher is appointed on regular basis or the date of passing the higher examination, whichever is later, but the payment of arrears, as a result of grant of such benefit should be restricted to a period of 38 months only, as already mentioned above.
3. The teachers placed in the higher scale can only be regularly adjusted when corresponding posts in the higher scale become CWP No. 11760 of 1989 5 available; in that case such teachers may continue to enjoy the higher scale as a personal measure till they are adjusted against regular posts as and when the same become available."
10. It was clarified that the contemplated benefit was confined to the categories of teachers mentioned in the Circular letter No. 5058.FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23, 1957."
The aforesaid proposition of law could not be successfully disputed by Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, learned counsel for the petitioners. The letter dated 23.7.1957 used to be basis of claim for increments/ higher pay scale on the ground of higher education qualifications. Hence the pay scales were linked with education qualifications. However, the aforesaid position underwent change when letter dated 23.7.1957 was withdrawn on 19.2.1979. The instructions issued on 19.2.1979 de-linked higher education qualification from the pay scales which has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurpal Tuli's case (supra). It is now well settled that the pay scale of the post on which the petitioners have been appointed are to be given irrespective of their educational qualifications. Such being the legal position there is no escape from the conclusion that the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim additional increments on acquiring higher qualifications. However, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that no recovery be effected . The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, the respondents are directed not to effect recovery, if any, from the petitioners.
(M.M.Kumar) 24.4.2009 Judge okg