WRIT PETITION 7240 of 1989 on 23 July 1957

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.

This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No.9005 of 1989, C.W.P.No.7240 of 1990, C.W.P. No.15102 of 1990 and C.W.P. No.1590 of 1991as the common question of law and fact have been raised. The petitionershave claimed higher pay/ higher pay scale in lieu of acquisition of higherqualification. Their claim is founded on instructions dated 23.7.1957.Those instructions had granted benefit of higher basic or increments as andwhen teacher/ masters have acquired higher educational qualifications.Those instructions were withdrawn on 19.2.1979 and the pay-scale were de-linked from the higher qualification. According to the instructions dated19.2.1979, the pay-scale of teacher/ masters were required to be fixed

according to the post held by them. The litigation between the teachers/master travelled to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in the case of GurpalTuli and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court1901, the action of withdrawing instructions dated 23.7.1957 was upheldand in para 9 and 10, their lordships made following observations:- “9.It appears that several teachers filed writ petitions in theHigh Court claiming revised scales of pay on the groundthat they had taken graduate degrees and, therefore, wereentitled to the benefit of the grade mentioned againstCategory `A' in the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. Inopposition to the writ petitions, the State Governmentcontended that the letter did not contemplate the grant ofthe grade to all teachers but only to teachers appointed asMasters. The High Court held the teachers entitled to thebenefit of the revised grade, whether or not they had beenappointed as Masters, because, in the opinion of the HighCourt, the qualifying criterion was the possession of agraduate degree. The judgment of the High Court wasaffirmed by this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia (AIR 1976SC 2459) (supra). The State Government found itdifficult, having regard to the prevailing burden on itsfinancial resources, to extend the benefit of the Circularletter dated July 23, 1957 to the much wider section ofteachers covered in consequence of the Court's judgment.Accordingly, the State Government issued Circular letterNo.9/9/79-FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979, paragraphHigh Court claiming revised scales of pay on the groundthat they had taken graduate degrees and, therefore, wereentitled to the benefit of the grade mentioned againstCategory `A' in the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. Inopposition to the writ petitions, the State Governmentcontended that the letter did not contemplate the grant ofthe grade to all teachers but only to teachers appointed asMasters. The High Court held the teachers entitled to thebenefit of the revised grade, whether or not they had beenappointed as Masters, because, in the opinion of the HighCourt, the qualifying criterion was the possession of agraduate degree. The judgment of the High Court wasaffirmed by this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia (AIR 1976SC 2459) (supra). The State Government found itdifficult, having regard to the prevailing burden on itsfinancial resources, to extend the benefit of the Circularletter dated July 23, 1957 to the much wider section ofteachers covered in consequence of the Court's judgment.Accordingly, the State Government issued Circular letterNo.9/9/79-FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979, paragraph

3 of which stated that in order to ensure that “theseunintended and large financial implications do notcontinue arising in future” the whole matter had beenreconsidered by the State Government and as a result theGovernment ordered that henceforth the teachers of theEducation Department would not automatically beentitled to placement in the higher scales of pay in termsof paragraph 3 of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957by the mere circumstance of their improving or acquiringhigher qualifications in the course of their service. Therigour of the restriction was relaxed in some measure.Paragraph 3 said further:- “However, in order to avoid discrimination betweenteachers who have already been allowed higherscales of pay on account of having improved theirqualifications and those who have not yet beenallowed this benefit even though they also possesshigher qualifications it is decided that all teachers inthe Education Department who have improved theirqualifications before the issue of this letter may beallowed the benefit of higher scale of pay on thebasis of their qualifications.”

The benefit was not extended to those who wereappointed or who had improved their qualifications afterthe issue of that Circular letter. The teachers continuedto agitate for a more generous dispensation. The State Government then issued Circular letter No.8937-5ED.1179/2659 dated September 20, 1979, which declared:- “The implementation of the decision contained inFinance Department circular letter No.9/9/79 FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979 to grant higher payscales to the teachers on the basis of higherqualifications was kept pending for want ofclarification on certain points from the FinanceDepartment which has now become available isreproduced below:-

1. The higher scale may be allowed from thedate of passing the respective higherexamination by the concerned teacher wherethis has already been done. However, actualpayment at enhanced rates should commencefrom 12-2-79 and the payment of arrearsaccruing from the date of passing theexamination till 13-2-1979 be restricted tothe maximum for 38 months.

2.

The benefit of the higher scale may beallowed from the date a particular teacher isappointed on regular basis or the date ofpassing the higher examination, whichever islater, but the payment of arrears as a result ofgrant of such benefit should be restricted to aperiod of 38 months only, as already mentioned above.

3. The teachers placed in the higher scale canonly be regularly adjusted whencorresponding posts in the higher scalebecome available; in that case such teachersmay continue to enjoy the higher scale as apersonal measure till they are adjustedagainst regular posts as and when the samebecome available.”

10. It was clarified that the contemplated benefit wasconfined to the categories of teachers mentioned in theCircular letter No.5058.FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23,1957.”confined to the categories of teachers mentioned in theCircular letter No.5058.FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23,1957.”

In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have acquired postgraduate qualification after 19.2.1979. According to the instructions dated19.2.1979, the teachers of the Education Department would notautomatically be entitled to placement in the higher scale of pay in terms ofpara 3 of the circular letter dated 23.7.1957 by virtue of merely acquiringhigher qualification in the course of their service. However, on 20.9.1979, aclarification was issued that those who had acquired the qualification before19.2.1979 and were appointed would be entitled to the grant of benefits interms of letter dated 23.7.1957 subject to further conditions. It is thusevident that the benefits in lieu of higher qualification acquired after19.2.1979 would not be available to the petitioners who have admittedlyacquired post graduate qualification much later. The writ petitions arewholly misconceived and are thus liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons afore-mentioned, these writ petitions fails and same are dismissed.

April 29, 2009renu

( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE