PETITIONER:
WAZIR SINGH,JBT TEACHER & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF HARYANATHROUGH ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATIONDEPARTME
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1995
BENCH:
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 889 JT 1995 (7) 404
1995 SCALE (5)641
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTK.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Instructions dated July 23, 1957 on the basis of which the petitioners/appellants rested their claims, stood superseded and no more applicable to the employees of the Haryana Government.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 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
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
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
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 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.