LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus RAVI BALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
v.
RA VI BALA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 26, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Se1vice Law-Policy instrnctions issued by Government of Haryana
dated 9.3.1990--Teachers-Parity of pay scales-Acquisition of higher
qualifications claim for higher scales on the basis of qualification-Respon-
C dents appointed as Junior Basic Teachers-Subsequently they acquired higher
qualifications-Their claim for higher pay scales allowed by High Court-Ap-
peal by Stat,,.....f{eld, teachers who acquired the qualifications on and after
9.3.1990 are not entitled to higher scale of pay-Government circular dated
9.3.1991>-Held, prospective in application.
D
Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana, [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 697, referred to.
E
Chaman Lal v. State of Harya11a, [1987] 3 SCC 213, held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15401 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.95 of the Pnnjab & Haryana
High .court in C.W.P. No. 10548 of 1994.
Ajay Siwach for Prem Malhotra; Adv. for the Appellants.
F
Paokaj Kalra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The respondents had filed writ petition claiming higher scale of pay
on their acquiring B.T./E.Ed. qualification. Admittedly, they were ap-
pointed as Junior Basic Teachers. They improved their qualifications and
'·
claimed parity on the basis of the letter issued by the then Pnnjab Govem-
H ment on July 23, 1957 in Circular No. 5056-FR-11/57. The High Court
206
STATE v. RAvl BAlA
207
issued the directions. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
The controversy is covered by the Judgment of this Court in Wazir
Singh v. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 697, wherein this Court had
held while dealing with the revision of the pay-scale of Government
employees, i.e., teaching personnel of the Education Department, the
Government of Haryana had in their policy instructions dated March 9,
1990 expressed in unequivocal terms that the intention to retract from the
earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be
entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their
acquiring that qualification. Therefore, as they did not acquire the
qualification before 9.3.1990, they are not entitled to the benefit of the
higher grade of pay automatically.
A
B
c
It is contended by Shri Pankaj Katra, learned counsel for the respon-
dents, that this controversy was considered by this Court in Chaman Lal v.
State of Haryana, (1987) 3 SCC 213, and the Government cannot by the
memo dated March 9, 1990 set at naught the judgment of this Court. We D
find no force in the contention. It is seen that the Government have
specifically explained in their letter that though the composite Punjab State
had issued the above circular which was accepted by the Kothari Commis-
sion, the Government of Haryana after its letter dated January, 5, 1968 had
not followed that Punjab Order. However, it was construed that the
Government have adopted the above letter. In that light, they had recon-
sidered the entire issue and stated in paragraph 6 of the letter thus :
"6. In order to remove the confusion being created by misconstru-
E
ing the intention of the Govt., the whole matter has been recon-
sidered by the State Govt. As a result of the reconsideration, the F
Governor of Haryana is pleased to clarify that the teachers of the
Education Department are not entitled to be placed in the higher
scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab Go\t., letter No.
5056-F-11-57/6600 dated 23rd July, 1957 or any subsequent let-
ters/notifications issued by the Haryana Govt. referred to in the G
preceding paras, which letters already become inoperative on their
improving/acquiring higher qualifications during the course of
their service automatically. The masters/teachers in the Education
Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective
to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere
possessing/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them H
208
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
automatically to claim higher pay scales."
This letter was considered by this Court in Wazir Singh's case and it
was held that those who acquired the qualifications are not automatically
entitled to the fitment in the higher pay scales. In the judgment in WazirExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.