STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 06-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Pay Scale-JBT teachers in State of Haryana-Claim for higher pay 
scale on acquiring higher qualification-Government order dated 9. 3.1990 C 
retracting from earlier principle and issuing a clarification that teachers to be 
paid scale of pay of the post to which they are appointed and mere possession/ 
acquiring higher qualification will not entitle them automatically to claim 
higher pay scale-JBT teachers in State of Haryana having B.Ed.18. T. 
qualification prior to their appointment as JBT teachers challenging the said D 
Government Order-Held, it is not a case where petitioners acquired higher 
qualification prior to 9.3.1990 while in service as teachers or masters-Circular 
dated 9.3.1990 clearly states that a higher scale of pay would not be admissible 
to them despite holding a higher qualification having been appointed on a 
lower post-Petitioners already had higher qualification prior to their 
appointment as JBT teachers, and as such were not entitled to higher scale E 
of p~upreme Court also in its earlier decisions has held that even holders 
of such offices would not automatically be entitled, on acquisition of a higher 
qualification, to higher scale of pay-Besides, an order contrary to a statute 
or Rules cannot be passed under Article 142 of the Constitution-Composite 
Punjab Government Finance Department Circular No. 5056-FR-11157 dated F 
23. 7. 1957-Haryana Government order dated 9.3.1990-Constitution of 
India-Article 142. 
State of Haryana and Anr. v. Kamal Singh Saharwat and Ors., (19991 
8 SCC 44 and Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana, (19951 Supp. 3 SCC 697, 
relied on. 
Rattan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (19941 3 Recent Service 
Judgment 220 and Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, [19871 3 SCC 11, 
referred to. 
351 
G 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4861 of 1998. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.97 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.P.No. 16208 of 1996. 
Neeraj Kumar Jain and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellants. 
Alok Sangwan, Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Anil Hooda, Dr.G.S. Sangwan and 
Mrs. Santosh Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc basis as JBT teachers 
on various dated in the year 1982-1983 in the school run by the State of 
Haryana. Their qualification is JBT and Prabhakar, which they acquired prior 
to joining as JBT teacher. In the year 1957, the State of Punjab issued a 
Circular on 23rd July, 1957 directing that higher pay scale shall be granted. 
to a particular class of teachers on acquiring the particular educational 
D qualification. It is alleged that this Circular was made applicable to the State 
of Haryana also. Subsequently, on 5th September, 1979, State of Haryana 
issued an Order which provided for the grant of higher pay scale on acquisition 
of higher qualification which was superseded by Government Order dated 
9th March, 1990 which runs as follows: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"8. In the present revision of pay scale of government employees 
teaching personnel of the Education Department (hereinafter called 
the 'policy of the Government' in unequivocal tenns the Government 
have expressed their 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. Relevant portions :n the policy of Government dated 
9.3.1990 read as follows: 
"I am directed to refer to composite Punjab Government Finance 
Department Circular No. 5056-FR-l l/57 dated 23.7.1957 on the 
subject noted above, which contains the details regarding the revision 
of the pay scales of various categories of subordinate services 
(including teachers) done on the recommendations made by the Pay 
Revisions Committee, then appointed to examine this matter. While 
evolving revised pay scale in respect of different categories of teachers 
in the Education Department, in para 3 of the above-mentioned circular 
STATE v. SUMITRADEVI 
353 
two broad categories namely, category A and category B of teachers A 
were mentioned, inter a/ia laying down the requirements of academic 
qualifications in their cases. It would not have been intended by the 
Government that on their acquisition of hi

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