Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/04/1987
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1621 1987 SCR (2) 923
1987 SCC (3) 113 JT 1987 (2) 135
1987 SCALE (1)761
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1988 SC 892 (13)
ACT:
Haryana Educational Service--Teacher--Pay Scale linked
to qualifications--Basic Trained Teacher acquiring B.Ed/B.T.
qualification subsequent to joining service--Entitlement to
higher pay scale-Admissibility of.
HEADNOTE:
In the Haryana Educational Service, there were two
categories of teachers described as Masters and Basic
Trained Teachers. 25% of the posts of Masters were reserved
for promotion from the posts of Basic Trained teachers.
Masters could be promoted to higher posts. By an order dated
July 23, 1957 there was a revision of the scales of pay.
Teachers were placed according to their qualifications in
two categories, Catetogy A consisting of B.A, B.Com, B.Sc.
(Agriculure) and B.T., and Category ’B’ consisting of four
groups of whom Group I was Matric with basic training
(including J.B.T.). The scale of pay was linked to the
qualification and for category ’A’ it was Rs.110-250 with a
higher start for M.A. and M.Sc. and for Category ’B’ it was
Lower Rs.60-120, Middle Rs.120-175 and Upper Rs.140-200.
While Kripal Singh Bhatia’s case and other petitions
were pending, the Government of Haryana issued an order
further revising the scales of pay of teachers working in
Government schools in 1968 consequent on the acceptance of
the recommendations of the Kothari Commission with effect
from December 1, 1967. There was, however, no departure from
the principle of the 1957 order, that trained graduates
would be entitled to the higher scales of pay.
On September 5, 1979, the Government issued an order
granting Masters grade to unadjusted J.B.T. teachers who had
passed B.A., B.Ed. subject to certain conditions. This order
was challenged before the High Court by ’trained graduates’
i.e. those who possessed the B.Ed. or B.T. degree in addi-
tion to B.A. degree. They did not possess this degree ini-
tially but acquired it subsequent to their joining service
which was between 1953 and 1973. The High Court held that
those teachers who had acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. qualifica-
tion subsequent to December 1, 1967 (the date on which the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
1968 order came into force)
924
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. It fur-
ther held that the 1968 order did away with the principle of
the 1957 order, that teachers acquiring B.T. or B.Ed. quali-
fication 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 1969 to get the
higher scale from 1979.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. From 1957 to 1980, it was always accepted that
teachers who acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. qualification would
be entitled to the higher scale of pay as soon as they
acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates when
they were adjusted against the posts of Masters. The adjust-
ment against the posts of Masters was relevant for the
purpose of seniority in the post 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 Masters, a teacher was always held
entitled to the higher scale of pay from the date of the
acquisition of the B.T. or B.Ed. qualification. [930E-G]
2. It is plain that the High Court has ignored 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’s
case was argued in the High Court and this Court there was
not the slightest whisper that the principle had been de-
parted from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order ex-
pressly stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari
Commission’s report in regard to the scales of pay and the
main feature of the report with regard to pay was the link-
ing of pay to qualification. The High Court was not justi-
fied in departing from rule which had been well established
and consistently acted upon, it was not open to the State
Government to act upon the principle in some cases and
depart from it in other cases. [931E-G; 932B]
3. 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 could be no doubt that the Gov-
ernment never intended to retract from the principle that
teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.Ed. qualification would be
entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective
dates of their acquiring the qualification. The 1979 order
was indeed superfluous. There was no need for any special
sanction for the grant of
925
Master’s grade to unadjusted J.B.T. teachers, who had passed
B.A., B.Ed. That was already the position which obtained
both as a result of 1957 and 1968 orders and the several
judgments of the Court. [931G-H; 932A-B]
(The respondents directed to give the higher grade
admissible to Masters to all the teachers who have acquired
the B.T/B.Ed. qualification with effect from the respective
dates of their acquiring the qualification).
State of Punjab and another v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia &
Ors., [1976] 1 SCR 529, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal No. 1371 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
1980 ETC. & ETC.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.8.1978 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1220/1978.
Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioners.
V.C. Mahajan, C.V. Subba Rao, I.S. Goel, and N.S. Das
Bahl for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The appellants in the Civil Appeal
and the petitioners in the Writ Petitions are all ’trained
Graduates’, that is to say, all of them possess the B.Ed. or
B.T. degree in addition to the B.A. degree. They are teach-
ers in Government schools in the State of Haryana. They did
not possess the B.Ed. or B.T. degree when they joined serv-
ice initially. They acquired the B.Ed. or B.T. degree quali-
fication subsequent to their joining service which was
between the years 1953 and 1973. Some of them acquired the
B.Ed. or B.T. degree qualification before September 5, 1979
and in some cases after September, 5, 1979. The importance
of the date September 5, 1979 will become evident as we
proceed to state the facts. It appears that in the Haryana
Educational Service, there were two categories of teachers
described as Masters and Basic Trained teachers. 25% of the
posts of Masters were reserved for promotion from the posts
of Basic Trained teachers. Masters could be promoted to
higher posts. There appears to have been some dissatisfac-
tion regarding the scales of pay for teachers and so in
1957, there was a revision of the scales of pay by an order
dated July 23, 1957. All teachers, according to their quali-
fications,
926
were placed in two broad categories, category ’A’ consisting
of B.A/ B.SC./B.Com/B.Sc (Agriculture) and B.T., and Catego-
ry ’B’ consisting of 4 groups of whom Group 1 was "Matrics
with basic training (including JBT)". The Government order
mentioned the scales of pay as:
"Category ’A’: Rs.110-8-190/10-250 with
a higher start for M.A. & M.Sc. As at present.
The existence percentage of posts fixed by
Government for scales of Rs.110-8-190/10-250
and Rs.250-300 should remain unchanged at 35%
and 15% respectively.
Category ’B’: Lower Rs.60-4-80/5-
120 Middle Rs.120-5-175. Upper Rs.140-10-
200.
With a view to providing incentives,
it has been decided that posts falling in
these groups should be in the following as:
Group I: Lower Scale 85%
Middle Scale 15%
15% of teachers in this group should straight-
away be promoted to the middle scale by a
selection based on seniority and merits, while
the rest should be given the lower scale."
What is important to be noticed here is that the scale of
pay was linked to the qualification. A question was raised
whether teachers who started as Basic Trained teachers and
later acquired the B.Ed. or B.T. qualification, but who
could not be adjusted against posts of Masters would be
entitled to the grade of Rs.110-250? Answering a query, the
Secretary of the Department of Education replied, "Your
presumption that teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed.
qualifications would henceforth be placed in Category ’A’ is
confirmed". The question also came to be considered judi-
cially, first by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and
later by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
Singh Bhatia, [1976] 1 SCR 529. The Supreme Court, affirming
the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, held as
follows:
"The High Court rightly referred to
the letter of the Secretary of the Department
dated 24th September, 1957 that-teachers
holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualification
927
would henceforth be placed in Category ’A’.
The High Court tightly came to the conclusion
that the scale of pay of Rs.110-250 Would be
effective either from the date when the teach-
ers would pass the examination of Bachelor of
Teaching or its equivalent or 1st May, 1957
whichever is latter."
While the writ petitions were pending in the High Court, the
Government of Haryana issued an order directing further
revision of the scales of pay of teachers working in Govern-
ment schools in 1960. It was expressly stated in the order
that the scales of pay were being revised consequent on the
acceptance of the recommendations of the "Kothati Commis-
sion". One of the questions which the Kothari Commission had
considered in great detail was the scales of pay of teach-
ers. The Commission had strongly expressed the view that the
scales of pay should be linked to educational qualifica-
tions. In paragraph 3.15 of their report, the Commission
said:
"3.15 Our first proposal is that the existing
multiplicity of scales of pay should be re-
duced and that there should be three main
scales of pay for school teachers:
(1) A scale of pay for teachers who have
completed the secondary course and are trained
and who would form the vast bulk of teachers
at the primary stage;
(2) A scale of pay for trained graduates
who would form a small proportion of teachers
at the primary stage but the vast bulk of
teachers at the lower secondary stage;
(3) A scale of pay for teachers with
post-graduate qualifications who would form a
small proportion of teachers at the lower
secondary stage, but the bulk of teachers at
the higher secondary stage.
Incentives to teachers of special
subjects or to teachers with additional quali-
fications can be given in the form of advance
increments or special allowance. The scales of
pay of special teachers (i.e. for drawing,
craft, physical education, etc.) can also be
related to these three basic scales in some
suitable manner. The scales of pay for librar-
ians should also be related to those for
teachers in a suitable manner."
928
Again in paragraph 3.16(3), they said:
"Our attention has been drawn to an
anomaly which must be removed as early as
possible. Several States restrict, on finan-
cial grounds, the number of posts which carry
the scale of trained teachers who have com-
pleted the secondary school course. The re-
maining posts are usually assigned to lower
scales of pay sanctioned for teachers with
lower qualifications. Not infrequently, per-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
sons with lower qualifications are recruited
to these posts even when qualified and trained
teachers are available. This is bad enough;
but what is worse, even trained and qualified
teachers who are recruited against the posts
are given, not the salaries of qualified and
trained teachers to which they are entitled
but the lower salaries meant for these posts.
As the completion of secondary school course
and two years of professional trained are
accepted as the minimum qualification for a
primary teacher, this practice should be
abandoned as early as possible and the princi-
ple adopted that every trained teacher who has
completed the secondary school course received
the scale of pay sanctioned for such teachers.
This will remove an injustice now being done
to a large number of teachers in service, and
create an incentive for unqualified or un-
trained teachers to become qualified and
trained."
In Paragraph 3.17(3), they said:
"The scales of pay of trained graduate teach-
ers should have a minimum of Rs.220 rising to
Rs.400 in a period of about 20 years. There
should be a selection grade which would rise
to Rs.500 and be available to about 15 per
cent of the cadre."
We mentioned earlier that even in 1957, the Government of
Punjab (which at that time included Haryana) had already
accepted the principle of linking pay to qualification as
evident from their order dated July 23, 1957. Accepting the
Kothari Commission’s recommendations, they revised the
scales of pay with effect from December 1, 1967 in the
following manner:
929
"Sr. Category of teachers Revised Grade
No.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
1. J.B.T./J.S.T/J.A.V.C-& V i) Rs.125-5-150/5-250
teachers drawing masters. (for 85% of the cadre)
Tailoring Mistress Art & ii) Rs.250-10(for 15% of
Craft teachers, Demestic the cadre).
Science Mustresses & Shashtries.
N.B. The untrained teachers with High Secondary/Matricula-
tion qualifications will draw the starting of Rs.100 per
mensem and they will be integrated in the regular pay of
scales Only after they attain necessary provisional qualifi-
cation.
i) (Rs.220-8-300/10-400
(for 85% of the cadre)
2. Masters/Mistresses ii) Rs.400-20-500
(Trained Graduates) (for 15% of the cadre)
N.B. i) The 1st and 2nd class Graduates will be entitled to
draw one advance increment in addition.
(ii) The untrained Graduates will be allowed the starting
salary of Rs.200 per mensem and will be entitled for the
regular scales of pay only after attaining the prescribed
professional training."
Though the 1968 order had come into force with effect from
December 1, 1967, it was not suggested either before the
High Court or before the Supreme Court when Kirpal Singh
Bhatia’s case was decided that the 1968 order had made any
departure from the principle of the 1957 order that trained
Graduates would be entitled to the higher scales of pay. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
question however was raised in Civil Writ No. 2505 of 1972
in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and it was decided
in that case that teachers who did not originally possess
the B.T./B.Ed. qualification but who acquired such qualifi-
cation on various dates between 1960 and 1970 were entitled
to the higher scale of pay of Rs.220-300/ 400 with effect
from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualifica-
tion irrespective of the dates on which they were adjusted
against the posts of Masters. After the judgment of the High
Court was pronounced consequential orders were issued by the
Government on November 20, 1973. The question arose again in
Civil Writ No. 1991 of
930
1976 and other cases when it was disposed of by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on November
1980 with the following order:
"The learned counsel for the parties
are agreed that the matter in this and writ
petitions Nos. 1991 of 1976, 3829 of 1975,
4449 of 1974, 5227 of 1975, 5539 of 1975, 2247
of 1973, 7726 of 1976 and 7813 is covered by
the decision of the Supreme Court reported as
State of Punjab and Others v. Kirpal Singh
Bhatia and Others, [1975] 2 Service Law Re-
porter 621 and these petitioners have to be
allowed to in terms of the aforesaid judgment
of the Supreme Court.
The learned Advocate General, Har-
yana states that the benefit which flowed
because of the Judgment of the Supreme Court
in Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case (supra) has been
given to the petitioners in all these peti-
tions. Mr. J.L. Gupta learned counsel for the
petitioners, shows ignorance about this fact.
Whatever be the circumstances, the petitioners
are allowed in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case
(supra) with no order as to costs."
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 the higher
scale 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.
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. 5.9.1979 of the grant of
Masters grade to unadjusted J.B.T. teachers
who have passed B.A.,B.Ed., subject to the
following conditions:-
931
(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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
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 subse-
quent 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 acquiring B.T. or B.Ed. quali-
fication 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 qualifica-
tion was accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when
Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s 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
scale of pay was the linking of pay to qualification. That
was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced
in Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case. Even subsequently when sever-
al writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana and when the Government issued consequen-
tial 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 Kethari Commission which was accepted.
If so read there can be no doubt that the Government never
intended to retract from the principle that teachers acquir-
ing the B.T. or B.Ed. would be entitled to the higher grade
with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring
932
that qualification. The 1979 order was indeed superfluous.
There was no need for any special sanction for the grant of
Master’s grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed
B.A., B.Ed. That was already the position which obtained
both as a result of the 1957 and 1958 orders and the several
judgments of the Court. We do not think that the Punjab and
Haryana High Court was justified in departing from the rule
in the judgment under appeal. The rule had been well estab-
lished and consistently acted upon. Nor was it open to the
Government to act upon the principle in some cases and
depart from it in other cases. In the result we allow the
appeal and the Writ Petitions and direct the respondents to
give the higher grade admissible to Masters to all the
teachers who have acquired the B.T./B.Ed. qualification with
effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the
qualification. The appellants and the petitioners are enti-
tled to their costs.
N.P.V. Appeal
allowed.
933