Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1382 of 1999
PETITIONER:
State of Punjab & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Sainderjit Kaur
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004
BENCH:
CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3693 OF 2000
S.B. SINHA, J :
These two appeals involving identical question of law and
fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
The factual matrix is, however, being noticed from Civil
Appeal No.1382 of 1999.
On or about 6.8.1981, the respondent was appointed as
Sewing Teacher on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.480-
880/- by the District Education Officer, Ferozepur. She
claimed same scale of pay payable to Classical and Vernacular
Teachers. The said representation of the respondent was,
however, rejected.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, a
writ petition was filed by her before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment was
allowed relying on or on the basis of the earlier decisions of
the said court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab [1988 (4)
SLR 199] and Prabjot Kaur vs. State of Punjab [1994 (3) SCT
262].
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in
passing the impugned judgment insofar it failed to take into
consideration that the Education Department of the Government
of Punjab had made rules in terms of the proviso appended to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as ’Punjab
State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978,
in terms whereof the Sewing Teachers and Master(s) or
Mistress(es) were placed in different categories. In terms of
the said rules, the learned counsel would urge, whereas a
master or mistress must possess a degree of a recognised
university with B.Ed.; the requisite educational qualification
of a Tailoring Mistress is only matric or middle or equivalent
with three years’ Teachers’ Training Diploma from the
Industries Department of State or Industrial Training.
It was urged that the method of recruitment in the
category of Master or Mistress and Tailoring Mistress is also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
different. It was pointed out that on or about 17.2.1989 the
scales of pay of the teaching staff of the Education
Department had been revised; in terms whereof different scales
of pay had been granted to different categories of teachers
and in that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot
be sustained.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, would contend that various
other similarly situated teachers had been granted scales of
pay applicable to Classical and Vernacular Teachers. It was
further pointed out that the respondent is a handicapped
person.
Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the
opinion that although the High Court proceeded on a wrong
premise in passing the impugned judgment.
In Amarjit Kaur (supra), the writ petitioner therein had
been granted a revised scale of pay and the same was wrongly
withdrawn on the ground that she was confirmed with effect
from 22.5.1974 by mistake. The High Court rejected the said
contention of the respondent but proceeded further to hold
that the Education Department had classified and recognized
the Tailing Mistress and Classical and Vernacular Teachers in
the same category and, thus, when the scale of pay of the
Classical and Vernacular Teachers had been revised, there was
no reason as to why the pay scale of the Tailoring Mistress
should not be accordingly revised.
In Prabjot Kaur (supra), the High Court followed Amarjit
Kaur (supra) although the fact of the matter was quite
different.
The High Court, in the above referred decisions, had no
occasion to consider the effect of the statutory rules or the
notification revising scales of pay of different categories of
the teachers.
In a case of this nature, even the doctrine of equal pay
for equal work would not apply when it has not been
established that duties and functions of two categories of
employees are at par. Furthermore, a classification based on
different educational qualifications is permissible. Yet
again it may not matter as to whether the judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amarjit Kaur (supra) and
Prabjot Kaur (supra) had been appealed against or not. [See
Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy and Ors. \026 2003 (9)
SCALE 671].
The High Court while passing the impugned judgment did
not address itself as regard applicability of the 1978 Rules
as also the scales of pay granted to different categories of
teachers by the Government of Punjab in terms of its
notification dated 17.2.1989. By reason of the said
notification, the Government of Punjab adopted the
notification issued by the President of India in relation to
the revised scales of pay to the teaching staff of the
Education Department, the relevant portion whereof is to the
following effect :
Sr.
No.
Category
Present
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Scale
Revised
Scale
Remarks
5.
C & V Teacher i.e.
Pbi/Hindi/Urdu/
Sanskrit Teachers
570-1080
(with
3Adv.)
increments
Fi/Urdu
Trs. & 5
increments
to
Sanskrit
Teacher
1640-2925
Sr. Scale
after 8 yrs
service
1800-3200
SI Scale
after 18
years
service
2000-3500
7.
Domestic Sc. Trs.
Music Trs. Tabla
Players, Tailoring
Mist.
480-800
1200-2100
Sr. Scale
after 8 yrs
service
1410-2640,
SI Scale
after 18
yrs service
1640-2925
14.
Work Experience
Teacher, Vocation
Tr. Sewing Teacher
480-880
1800-2100
Sr. scale
after 8
yrs.
Service
1410-2460
Sr. scale
after 18
years
Service
1640-2925.
From a perusal of the said notification dated 17.2.1989,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
it is evident that the Classical and Vernacular Teacher had
been placed on a higher scale of pay, namely, Rs.570-1080/-;
whereas the Tailoring Mistress had been placed in the scale of
pay of Rs.480-800/-. Similar scale of pay had been granted to
the Trained Sewing Teachers. However, different scales of pay
in the categories of Tailoring Mistress and Sewing Teacher had
been made in senior scale after eight years and 18 years of
service respectively.
The validity of Notification dated 17.2.1989 has not been
questioned. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
of the High Court cannot be sustained.
However, having regard to the fact that the respondents
herein had been granted the same scale of pay and keeping in
view of the fact that she is a handicapped teacher, we are of
the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
In Chandra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Another [(2003) 6 SCC 545], this Court held:
"In any event, even assuming that there
is some force in the contention of the
appellants, this Court will be justified
in following Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 wherein this
Court declared that even if the
appellants’ contention is right in law
having regard to the overall
circumstances of the case, this Court
would be justified in declining to grant
relief under Article 136 while declaring
the law in favour of the appellants.
Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a
discretionary remedy. (See Champalal
Binani v. CIT, (1971) 3 SCC 20: AIR 1970
SC 645). The High Court and consequently
this Court while exercising their
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 or 32 of the Constitution of India
may not strike down an illegal order
although it would be lawful to do so. In
a given case, the High Court or this
Court may refuse to extend the benefit
of a discretionary relief to the
applicant. Furthermore, this Court
exercised its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India which need not be exercised in a
case where the impugned judgment is
found to be erroneous if by reason
thereof substantial justice is being
done. (See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v.
Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd.
(2003 (4) Supreme 44). Such a relief
can be denied, inter alia, when it would
be opposed to public policy or in a case
where quashing of an illegal order would
revive another illegal one. This Court
also in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India is entitled to pass such order
which will be complete justice to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
parties."
These appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned
observations; but in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.