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.