LexCHAMAN LAL & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J CHAMAN LAL & ORS. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ETC. APRIL 13, 1987 A (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] B Haryana Educational Service-Teacher-Pay Scale linked to qualifications-Basic Trained Teacher acquiring B'.Ed/B.T. qualifica- tion subsequent to joining service-E.ntitlement to higher pay scale- Admissibility of. In the Haryana Educational Service, there were two categories of c 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 qnaliflcations in two cate- D gories, Catetogy A consisting of B.A. B.Com, B.Sc. (Agriculure) and B. T., and Category 'B' consisting of four groups of wh9m 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. E While Kripal Singh Bhatia's case and other petitions were pend- ing, the Government of Haryana issued an order further revising the scales of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968 conse- quent on the acceptance of the recommendations of the Kothari Com- mission 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 Qf pay. F 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 G the High Court by 'trained graduates' i.e. those who possessed the B.Ed. or B.T. degree in addition to B.A. degree. They did not possess this degree initially 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. qualification subsequent to December 1, 1967 (the date on which the 1968 order came into force) H 923 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. A and before September 5, 1979 would be entitled to the Higher grade but ~ with effect from September 5, 19'79 only and that those who acquired the qualification subsequent to September 5, 1979 would not he entitled to the higher grade. It further held that the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order, that teachers acquiring B.T. or B.Ed. B 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 1969 to get the higher scale from 1979. >- Allowing the appeal, this Court, ~ HELD: J. From 1957 to 1980, it was always accepted that c 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 or" Masters. The adjustment against the posts of Masters was relevant for the purpose of seniority in the post of Masters and for the further D 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 I 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 E 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 departed from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order expressly ~ stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari Commission's F report in regard to the scales of pay and the main feature of t~e report .).._ with regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification. The High Court was not justified in departing from rule which bad 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 case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.