STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus PARTAP SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 22-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
PARTAP SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Civil Services Ru/es, 1969: Rule 4.4 Volume-I, Part-I. 
Pay fixation-Benefit of-Acquisition of higher qualifications-JET 
teachers in the State Education Department acquired higher qualifications 
of B.A.llnter B.Ed. during the course of their service-These teachers were 
promoted as Social Study Masters and subsequently granted one increment 
D on account of discharge of higher responsibilities-Subsequently, the State 
Government withdrew the said increments-High Court held that the said 
increments could not be withdrawn-Correctness of-Held: In the present 
case, the teachers are already drawing the pay scale of the post of Master 
i.e. higher post-As such there is no question of granting them one increment 
further now-- Therefore, they cannot get another fixation of pay which would 
E amount to double benefit-Judicial fiat cannot create anomalous position 
against the statute. 
The respondents were appointed as JBT teachers in the State Education 
Department. They acquired higher qualifications of B.A./lnter B.Ed. during 
the course of their service. A notification was issued to the effect that the 
F teachers who have acquired higher qualifications shall be granted higher 
grade. The respondents who had acquired higher qualifications were given 
the grade of Social Study Master and subsequently when they were promoted 
as Social Study Masters they were granted one increment on account of 
discharge of higher responsibilities from the date of promotion as Social 
G Study Masters and their initial pay in the promotional grade was fixed under 
Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1969. Subsequently, t:1e State 
Government decided that increment on account of discharge of higher 
qualifications could not be granted to the .Social Study Masters and, therefore, 
withdrew the said increments. 
H 
540 
•. 
... 
STATEOFHARYANAv. PARTAPSINGH 
541 
The High Court held that the respondents were discharging higher A 
responsibilities while teaching higher classes in schools and, therefore, under 
Rule 4.4 of the Rules they were entitled to the said increment and it could not 
be withdrawn. Hence the appeal . 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Rule 4.4 of the 
Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1969, Volume-I, Part-I or not? 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: l. Under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1969 in C 
case of promotion which involves.responsibilities of greater importance then 
the incumbent will draw as initial pay the stage of time-scale next above his 
substantive pay in respect of the old post. That means he will be entitled to 
one increment in the old post. But in the present case, the respondents are 
already drawing the pay scale of the post of Master i.e. higher post. As such D 
there is no question of granting them one increment further now. Under Rule 
4.4 it would 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 entitled to fixation of pay giving them the 
initial pay the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay in ·respect 
of the old post. But they are already fixed in the pay scale of higher post of E 
Master which though legitimately they were not entitled to because of the 
change in the policy but they continued in the higher pay scale despite the 
change in the policy and the Government did not take any further steps to put 
the house in proper order. Be that as it may, since the respondents were 
drawing the higher pay scale on acquiring higher educational qualifications, 
i.e. the Master's pay scale, and now only regular orders have been passed, 
. promoting ttiem as Masters, there is no question of again fixing them next 
above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. They are not holding 
the old post any more and they were not drawing the salary of JBT teachers 
i.e. the old post. Therefore, there is no question of granting them the initial 
F 
pay the stage of time scale next above their substantive pay in respect of the G 
old post.1543-F-H; 544-A-GI 
State of Haryana v. Sumitra Devi, 12004112 SCC 322 and Union of India 
v. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, 119981 5 SCC 242, relied on. 
2. When the respondents were already

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