STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus DHARAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 06-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 979 
.... --t 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DHARAM SINGH & ORS. 
-1 
(Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 6, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
_ _. 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Claim of respondents for entitlement to 
promotional increments - Directions given by High Court to c 
consider the claim - Challenged - Held: High Court came 
to an abrupt conclusion regarding entitlement relying on an 
earlier decision without indicating as to how the factual 
scenario was similar- Matter remitted to High Court to decide 
the matter afresh. 
D 
The respondents filed writ petition claiming 
entitlement to promotional increments on the basis that 
they were working as J.B.T. teachers and were promoted 
to the post of Headmaster on the basis on seniority-cum-
E 
merit. High Court allowed the petition. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
directions given by High Court to consider the case of 
~ 
the respondents for grant of increment had no legal basis. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The High Court came to an abrupt 
conclusion regarding entitlement relying on an earlier 
--i 
decision without indicating as to how the factual scenario 
was similar. [Para 7) [982-B] 
G 
+ 
2. In the aforesaid background, the matter is remitted 
to the High Court to consider the applicability and 
-" 
relevance of Pratap Singh's case to the facts of the present 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
,.... 
case and to decide the matter afresh. [Para 8) [982-C) 
-
A 
lo--
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 753 
of 2009. 
·-
B 
From the Judgment/Order dated 5.12.2000 in CWP No. 
663/1999 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 
Chandigarh. 
Manjit Singh, MG. and T.V. George for the Appellant. 
c 
Balbir Singh Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing 
the writ petition filed by the respondents. The High Court relied 
on an earlier decision rendered by it in Civil Writ Petition 
No.15157 of 1998. 
E 
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant 
submitted that the directions given by the High Court to consider 
the case of the respondents for grant of one increment on 
account of promotion to the next higher rank has no legal basis. 
It is pointed out that the respondents claim was for promotional 
F increments. The writ petitioners claimed promotional 
increments on the basis that they were working as J.B.T. 
teachers and were promoted to the post of Headmaster on the 
basis of seniority-cum-merit. They have already received the 
same higher pay scale of the Headmaster as a personal 
G measure, prior to being promoted and without performing the 
dues of higher responsibility at that stage. Strong reliance was 
placed on a decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. 
,. 
v. Partap Singh and Ors. (2006 (10) SCC 251 ). 
4. The ratio in that decision is as follows: 
.. 
H 
STATE OF HARYANAAND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
981 
"The respondents were already getting the functional 
A 
pay of Masters while working as JBT teachers. Because 
of regular promotion order being issued for the post of 
Masters, it only amounted to regularization of the pay scale 
which they were already drawing i.e. pay scale of Masters. 
Thus, granting of one more increment because of 
B 
regularization of the respondents by promoting them to the 
post of Masters, would not entitle them to the double 
benefit; though they have already got one increment on 
acquiring the higher educational qualifications and now on 
regular promotion being given in the Masters' pay scale c 
in which they were already working, they cannot claim 
another benefit. Under Rule 4.4 it could have been 
possible to grant them fixation if they were continuing in 
the old scale of JBT teachers and on their promotion to 
the post of Master, then certainly they would have been 
0 
entitled to fixation of pay giving them the initial pay the 
stage of timescale next above their substantive pay in 
respect of the old post. But they are already fixed in the 
pay scale of higher post of Master which though 
legitimately they were not entitled to because of the change 
E 
in the policy but they continued in the higher pay scale 
despite the change in the policy and the Government did 
not tak

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.