LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus RAI CHAND JAIN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. RAI CHAND JAIN AND ORS. APRIL 21, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Seivice Law : Payscales-Parity i11 salary i11 the selectio11 grade payscales-Held : C Since Govemme11t itself has accepted to compute the selection grade wherever available prior to 1.1.86 a11d to work it out 011 the basis of the total strength of the cadre, with co11seque11tial benefits, 110 i11teiference is called f or-f'ay- ment of an-ears-From which date to be paid, being a11 executive policy, is not violative of ATt, J4-Co11stitutio11 of India, Art, 14. D Teachers who have not acquired higher qualificatio11s-Held not en- titled to higher payscales. State of Harylllla & A11r. v. Ravi Bala & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 267 and Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 697, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3236- 3274 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.93, 2.4.92, 26.5.94, 10.8.94, 28.3.94, 6.3.95, 15.5.95, 8.11.93, 6.3.95, 2.11.93, 5.8.93, 2.4.92, 5.8.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 13493/91, 486, 521/91, F 8709/93, 16884/91, 910/94, 2143/93, 2828/94, 3365/94, 6101/94, 14403-04, 15092/93, 8705, 10341, 9800/93, 2460, 1387, 6965, 6986/94, 13683, 6923/93, 6353/94, 15523/93, 281/94, 14046/93, 16146, 16560/94, 3946/95, 16891/94, 3945/95, 4231/95, 6927/93, 1112, 2896/95, 15630/94, 16879/91, 6569, 6232/93. G Jasbir Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. Pankaj Kalra, Ranbir Yadav, Pardeep Gupta, K.K. Gupta, A.C. Mahimkar, M.S. Dahiya, A.K. Goel, Mrs. Sheel Goel and Goodwill In- deevar for the Respondents. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 894 T - / STATE v. R.C. JAIN 895 Substitution allowed. A Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated 2.11.1993 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in CWP No. 13493/91 & batch. It is not necessary to narrate all the factual details. B Suffice it to state that the respondents claim payment of salary in the selection grade pay-scales which the High Court has granted them. While we have taken the matter for final disposal, Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the respondent, has brought to our notice the order issued by the Government on August 20, 1996 signed by the joint Secretary C (Finance), for Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana, Finance Department which reads as under : "I am directed to invite your attention to the subject noted above and to say that prior to 1.4. 79 the Selection Grade to Group C & D Category employees was admissible on the basis of the number D of permanent posts in a particular cadre and later on, till 1.1.86, the date on which this practice was altogether abolished, for determining the number of the Selection Grade posts, the tem- porary posts in existence for the preceding three years were taken into account. CWP. No. 2143 of 1994 of 11255 of 1995 were filed in the High Court by some teachers of the Education Department and while disposing these off, Hon'ble High Court directed to grant the selection grade on the basis of total strength, including permanent E and temporary posts, with all consequential benefits, to the F petitioners. Thus the employees of the Education Department have already been granted this benefit as per the judgment. The Government has, therefore, decided that the selection grade wherever available prior to 1.1.86 may be worked out on the G basis of total strength including permanent and temporary posts and all consequential benefits including arrears of 38 months preceding the date of such decision, be allowed to eligible employees." In view of the above direction, we are of the view that since the H 896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R. A Government itself has accepted to compute the selection grade wherever available prior to 1.1.86 and to work it out on the basis of the total strength of the cadre including permanent and temporary posts with consequential benefits including arrears for 38 months preceding the date of the decision, i.e., dated 20.8.1996, these cases need no interference. B Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel has stated that fixation of 38 months for payment of arrears is arbitrary. We find no force in the contention. It is for the Government to decide as a part of the executive policy as to from which date the arrears would be granted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.