Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB HIGHER QUALIFIED TEACHERS UNION(NON-PETITIONERS ) & O
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1988
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 892 1988 SCR (2)1087
1988 SCC (2) 407 JT 1988 (1) 399
1988 SCALE (1)373
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Classification
for purposes of revision of pay-Punjab Educational Services
Class III School Cadre Rules 1955, Rule 10-Graduate teachers
falling in Category B Group II-Form class by themselves-
Cannot be subjected to further requirement of having JST/JAV
training for entitlement to higher pay scale.
Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre
Rules 1955: Rule 10 and State Government Circular dated July
23,1957-Category B Group II JBT teachers-Whether entitled to
higher pay scale on acquiring higher educational
qualifications of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed-Expression ’plus JAV
training ’-Interpretation of.
HEADNOTE:
%
The State Government by Circular dated July 23,1957
directed revision of the existing pay scales of various
categories of subordinate staff including Teachers in the
Education Department. Paragraph 3 of the said circular
provided for revision of pay-scales of Teachers and placed
them into two distinct categories, Category A and Category B
and laid down the requirements of academic qualification
with respect to each of them. Category B was further sub-
divided into two groups viz:
Group I-Matric with Basic training (including Junior
Teachers).
Group II-Junior School Teachers (including Assistant
Mistresses with BA/Inter/Matric plus JAV training).
On more occasions than one, this Court intervened on
behalf of those Teachers who had improved or acquired higher
academic qualifications and were denied higher scales of
pay, and issued directions for extending the benefit of para
3 of the aforesaid Circular.
In compliance with the directions of this Court in
Avtar Singh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., the Director of Public
Instructions (Schools)
1088
by Order dated June 30, 1986 accorded sanction to payment of
arrears of pay to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I,
to 3600 JBT Teachers belonging to Category B Group II who
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
had improved their educational qualifications and acquired
degrees in B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Sc., B.Ed. etc. Similar relief
was however denied to 6,000 other Teachers falling in
Category B Group II on the ground that they did not have
requisite professional training of JST/JAV, and were
therefore not entitled to the higher grade.
In the Writ Petitions to this Court, by the Matriculate
Junior Basic Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed
in Category B, Group II of the Circular dated July 23, 1957
it was contended that the State Government was bound to
grant the benefit of higher grade of pay to all the Teachers
belonging to Category B Group II on their improving or
acquiring higher educational qualifications as and from the
respective dates of their passing the examination, and that
it was not open to the Government on the pretext of
verification of claims to confine the relief to some of the
teachers and deny the same to the others who were all
similarly situated and recruited in the same manner and
appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had improved their
qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A., B.T. etc., and
that the so-called professional training i.e. JST/JAV could
not be made a condition pre-requisite to the grant of higher
pay.
These petitions were contested by the State Government
by contending that the petitioners were not entitled to
higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational
qualifications as they did not stand the eligibility test on
verification of their claims, and that according to
paragraph 3 of the Circular, all Teachers according to their
qualifications were placed into two broad categories for
purposes of revision of pay,Category A consisting of
B.A./B.Sc./B.Com./B.Sc. (Agriculture) and BT, and Category B
of whom Group I was ’Matric with basic training (including
JBT)’.
On the question: whether JBT Teachers falling under
Category B Group II were not entitled to the higher pay
merely on their acquiring higher Educational Qualifications
of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but that gaining professional
experience of JST/JAV training was essential.
Allowing the Writ Petitions,
^
HELD: 1. Graduate Teachers form a class by themselves
and cannot be subjected to the further requirement of having
JST/JAV
1089
training. The words ’plus JAV training’ clearly qualify
the work ’Matric’ and relate only two Matriculate JBT
Teachers. Such a classification for revision of pay
satisfies the touchstone of Article 14, and would render the
action of the State Government in seeking to discriminate
between Graduate Teachers with JST/JAV training and Graduate
Teachers with or without such training, impermissible as the
attempt is to create a class within a class without any
rational basis. [1095D-F]
2. It is regrettable that despite clear pronouncements
made by this Court as well as the High Court in a long line
of decisions there is no redressal of the wrong done to JBT
Teachers belonging to Category B Group II although they had
acquired B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications. [1095F-G]
3. The petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category
B Group II, are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or
improving their academic qualifications. The respondents are
directed to give them the higher scale of pay as admissible
to Teachers in Category B Group I with effect from the
respective dates of their acquiring the qualification.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
[1097B-C]
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia &
Ors.,[1976] 1 SCR 529; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh
Garcha & Ors., (C.A. Nos. 926-27/77 decided on August 7,
1979); and Avtar Singh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (C.A. No.
3790/83 decided on September 14, 1984, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 63 &
449 of 1986 etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
A.K. Ganguli, A. Sharan and G.S. Chatterjee for the
Petitioners.
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. This is a batch of petitions under Art. 32 of
the Constitution filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic
Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B,
Group II in
1090
terms of paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular dated
July 23, 1957 who have been continuously and unrelentlessly
struggling to get the benefit of higher grade of pay on
their improving or acquiring higher qualification viz. B.A.,
B.T./B.A., B.Ed./Matric with JST/ Gyani or Prabhakar, as per
the terms thereof, and the persistent refusal of the State
Government to adhere to the terms of the said Circular
mainly on the ground that such teachers on their improving
or acquiring higher qualifications during the course of
their service would not automatically be placed in different
grades commensurate with their academic qualifications
unless they had the professional qualification of requisite
experience of a post carried in the higher grade
irrespective of the number of posts available in the
department in that category. It is asserted that the
aforesaid Circular was couched in somewhat ambiguous
language and has resulted in different interpretations and
it was never the intention of the Government to undertake
the continuing unintended heavy financial burden that had
arisen because of the faulty drafting of the Circular.
It is common ground that by the aforesaid Circular
dated July 23, 1957 the State Government directed revision
of the existing pay scales of various categories of
subordinate offices including Teachers in the Education
Department. Paragraph 3 thereof provided for revision of
pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct
categories, namely, Category A and Category B and inter alia
laid down the requirement of academic qualifications with
respect to each. The relevant part of paragraph 3 reads as
follows:
"3. Teachers in the Education Department: 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 in Physical Education/Diploma in
Senior Basic Training.
CATEGORY ’B’
Group I-Matrics with Basic Training (including
Junior Teachers)
Group II-Junior School Teachers (including
Assistant Mistresses with B.A./Inter/Matric plus
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
J.A.V. Training)."
1091
It is quite evident that the revision of pay of
Teachers was based on the principle of linking pay to
qualification. It would not be out of place to mention that
the Kothari Commission constituted by the State Government
of Punjab considered in great detail the scales of pay of
Teachers. The Commission strongly expressed the view that
the scales of pay of Teachers should be linked to
educational qualifications. Accepting the recommendations of
the Kothari Commission, the State Government of Haryana in
1968 directed further revision of scales of pay of Teachers
working in Government Schools w.e.f. December 1, 1967.
On more occasions than one, this Court had to intervene
on behalf of these unfortunate Teachers for the redressal of
the wrong done to them by denial of higher scales of pay on
their improving or acquiring higher academic qualifications
and issued directions for extending the benefit of paragraph
3 of the Circular to them. Despite the repeated directions,
the State Government has been adamant in not complying with
such directions on one pretext or another. In State of
Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1976] 1 SCR
529 this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia &
Ors., [1972] SLR 402 directing that Teachers holding B.A.,
B.T./B.A. B.Ed. qualifications would be entitled to the
higher scale of pay. The Court construed the aforesaid
Circular as falling within the ambit of r. 10 of the Punjab
Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 as
to the entitlement of higher scales of pay and held that it
had the effect of fixing the scale of pay on the basis of
academic qualifications. It was accordingly held that
Teachers who possessed the degree of B.T. or the equivalent
on May 1,1957 would be entitled to scales of pay
commensurate with such higher qualification, and as to the
Teachers who acquired such higher qualification thereafter,
they would be entitled to their revised scale of pay w.e.f.
the date they passed the examination. It categorically
repelled the contention on behalf of the Government that
there could be no automatic revision of the scales of pay
dependent upon the higher qualifications and unequivocally
held that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed.
qualifications became entitled to the revised scales of pay
according to Category A w.e.f. the date they passed the
examination in terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular.
In Labh Singh Garcha & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(W.P. No. 1810/76 decided on July 20, 1976), Chinnappa
Reddy, J. speaking for himself and Surinder Singh, J.
allowed the writ petition filed by
1092
JBT Teachers falling in Category B who claimed the benefit
of higher scales of pay as done in the case of Graduate
Teachers in Categroy A pursuant to the High Court’s decree
in Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case. The Court found that the
action of the Government in denying to the JBT Teachers who
had acquired or improved their educational qualification,
the benefit of the higher scales of pay, was per se
discriminatory and accordingly issued a direction to the
State Government to release to them the revised scales of
pay admissible to them in terms of paragraph 3 of the
Circular. The State Government carried an appeal to this
Court. In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Labh Singh Garcha &
Ors., (C.A. Nos. 926-27/77 decided on August 7, 1979) this
Court held that the matter was squarely covered by the
decision of this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
observed that ’no new point arises’ and accordingly
dismissed the appeal.
The State Government having failed to carry out the
directions issued, the JBT Teachers with higher
qualifications were constrained to move the High Court for
contempt but it declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the
Teachers came up in appeal. At the hearing of Avtar Singh v.
Manmohan Singh & Anr., (C.A. 3790/83 decided on September
14, 1984), the Court indicated that the view taken by the
High Court did not commend to it and wanted learned counsel
for the State Government to ascertain the attitude of the
Government. At his request, the matter was adjourned. At the
resumed hearing, he signified the willingness of the State
Government to comply with the directions given by this
Court. The Court accordingly set aside the judgment of the
High Court and directed the State Government to implement
the order passed in Labh Singh Garcha’s case within three
months, holding that the appellants and other petitioners in
the High Court and Teachers similarly situate i.e. JBT
Teachers with higher qualifications, were entitled to the
benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular. It pointed out that
the Director of public Instructions (Schools), Punjab by her
affidavit dated February 5, 1980 had unconditionally agreed
to implement the same without any reservation. As regards
such Teachers who had not approached the Court but were
similarly situate, the Court directed that they must make an
application for seeking benefit of the aforesaid Circular.
By a clarificatory order dated February 21, 1985, the
Court clarified that every Teacher entitled to the benefit
of the earlier order may make an application within six
weeks from that date. It however made a direction to the
following effect:
1093
"In the application the teacher should strive as
best she/he could to set out his claim as directed
herein. The Director may verify the claim with
reference to record he may have and the
eligibility for relief. But if the claim is of a
teacher who was a petitioner in this Court or in
the High Court, eligibility enquiry is
impermissible, only amount of claim may be
verified. The Director of Education shall process
all the applications received by him in the manner
he thinks fit but he must make the payment within
three months from the date of the receipt of the
application."
Emphasis supplied
In compliance therewith the Director of Public
Instructions (Schools), Punjab by order dated 30th June,
1986 accorded sanction to make payment of arrears of pay
according to Teachers belonging to Category B Group I, to
3,600 JBT Teachers falling in Category B Group II who had
improved their educational qualifications and acquired
degrees in B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., but denied similar
relief to other 6,000 Teachers falling in Category B Group
II i.e. the petitioners, on the ground that they did not
have the requisite professional training of JST/JAV and
therefore not entitled to the higher grade. The impugned
order proceeds on the premise that eligibility for the claim
for JST grade which was a higher grade, did not depend upon
acquiring a higher educational qualification of B.A., B.T.
etc. but also to having the requisite professional training
i.e. JST/JAV training and further that a higher grade was
only allowed to the then existing JST Teachers which was a
diminishing cadre and since recruitment to that cadre had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
been stopped, there was no question of any entitlement of
such Teachers to acquiring the necessary professional
training. In other words, the Government has adopted the
stand that the right of the JBT Teachers belonging to
Category B Group II to the higher scale admissible to
Teachers placed in Category B Group I could not simply be
based on their educational qualification.
In support of these petitions Shri A.K. Ganguly,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, with infinite
care took us through all the orders referred to above and
rightly submitted that the State Government having given an
undertaking in Avtar Singh’s case that they are prepared to
carry out the directions made by the High Court, they are
bound to grant the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to
all the Teachers belonging to Category B Group II entitled
to the higher grade of pay on their acquiring or improving
their qualification, as
1094
from the respective dates of their passing the examination.
He further submitted that it was not open to the Government
on the pretext of verification of claims to confine the
relief to some of the teachers and deny the same to the
others who were all similarly situate, recruited in the same
manner and appointed as Matriculate JBT Teachers and had
improved their qualifications by acquiring degrees in B.A.,
B.T. etc. and the so-called professional training i.e.
JST/JAV could not be made a condition pre-requisite to the
grant of higher pay.
In reply Shri R.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State
Government, with his usual fairness accepted that the
Government was bound by the undertaking given in Avtar
Singh’s case but contended that even so, the petitioners
were not entitled to such higher pay as they did not stand
the eligibility test on verification of their claims merely
on their acquiring higher educational qualification. He
pointed out that according to paragraph 3 of the Circular,
all Teachers according to their qualifications were placed
into two broad categories for purposes of revision of pay,
Category A consisting of B.A/B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc (Agriculture)
and BT, and Category B consisting of 4 groups of whom Group
I was ’Matrics with basic training (including JBT)’. There
were three scales of pay in Category B-Lower Rs.60-120,
Middle Rs.120 175 and Upper Rs. 140-200. By way of
incentive, it was directed that posts falling in these
grounds would be in the following proportion-Group I, Lower
Scale 85%, Middle Scale 15%. 15% of Teachers in this group
had to be straightway promoted to the Middle Scale by
selection based on seniority and merit, while the rest were
given the Lower Scale. The scale of Rs.60-120 was later
revised to Rs.125-300, that of Rs. 120-175 to Rs.150-300 and
that of Rs.140-200 to Rs.480-880 w.e.f. 1st November, 1966,
16th July, 1975 and 1st January, 1978. In contrast, Junior
Secondary Trained/Junior Anglo-Vernacular Teachers with
JST/JAV teachers training qualifications were placed in
Category B Group II and their pay-scale was not revised. The
then existing incumbents in this category were allowed to
retain their existing pay-scale of Rs.80-250 which was
subsequently revised from time to time as per conditions of
their service. As a diminishing cadre, they were therefore
carried on a protected pay-scale of B.A., B.T. Teachers viz.
Rs.620-1200. According to the learned counsel, the question
before the Court is whether JBT Teachers placed in Category
B Group II have to be given the benefit of the pay-scale of
Rs.620-1200. This, he says, cannot be done as these Teachers
were not entitled to initial scale of Rs.80-250 meant only
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
for Junior Secondary Trained/Junior Anglo-Vernacular
Teachers with JST/JAV training qualification i.e. Teachers
governed by the protected category. At the hearing
1095
we directed the State Government to clarify its stand on the
eligibilitytest of Category B Group II Teachers to higher
pay. The Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Pubjab
and the Deputy Director (School Admn), Office of the
Director of Public Instructions have accordingly filed their
additional affidavits dated 10th November, 1986 and 9th
March, 1987. The petitioners have also placed on record
their written submissions in answer to these additional
affidavit.
The controversy is now limited to the question whether
JBT Teachers falling under Category B Group II are not
entitled to the higher pay merely on their acquiring higher
educational qualification of B.A. B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc. but
that gaining professional experience of JST/JAV training was
essential. That must turn on the relevant clause in
paragraph 3 relating to them which may be extracted below:
"Category ’B’ Group II-Junior School Teachers
(including Assistant Mistresses with
B.R./Inter/Matric plus J.A.V. Training)."
As a matter of plain construction, we are quite clear
in our mind that Graduate Teachers form a class by
themselves and cannot be subjected to the further
requirement of having JST/JAV training. The words ’plus JAV
training’ clearly qualify the word ’Matric’ and relate only
to Matriculate JBT Teachers. Such a classification for
revision of pay satisfies the touchstone of Art. 14 and
would render the action of the State Government in seeking
to discriminate between Graduate Teachers with JST/JAV
training and Graduate Teachers with or without such
training, impermissible as the attempt is to create a class
within a class without any rational basis.
We must accordingly uphold contention of the
petitioners that they are entitled to higher pay on
acquiring or improving their academic qualification. It is
regrettable that despite clear pronouncements made by this
Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions
starting with Kirpal Singh Bhatia’s case, there is no
redressal of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to
Category B Group II although they had acquired B.A.,
B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications. Quite recently, in Chaman
Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987] 3 SCC 113, Chinnappa
Reddy, J. has considered the question in some depth. The
learned Judge repelled the contention of the State
Government of Haryana based on its order dated 5th
September, 1979 which was sought to be interpreted to mean
that the Teachers who had acquired the B.T. or B.Ed.
qualification subsequent to 1st December,
1096
1967, the date on which the 1968 order came into force, and
before 5th September, 1979, would be entitled to the higher
grade but w.e.f. 5th September, 1979 only and that those who
acquired the qualification subsequent to that date would not
be entitled to the higher grade. According to the High Court
in that case, the 1968 order did away with the principle of
the 1957 order that Teachers who 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. This Court held that
the view taken by the High Court could not be sustained and
observed:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
"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 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 Learned Judge then said:
"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 BT or BEd would be entitled to the
higher grade with effect from the respective dates
of their acquiring 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
BA, BEd. That was already the position when
obtained both as a result of the 1957 and 1968
orders
1097
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
established 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."
The result therefore is that the writ petitions succeed
and are allowed with costs. We direct the respondents to
give to the petitioners who are Teachers placed in Category
B Group II, the higher scale of pay admissible to Teachers
in Category B Group I, they having acquired the
qualification of B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. etc., with effect
from the respective dates of their acquiring the
qualification.
N.V.K. Petitions allowed.
1098