LexSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus HEM LATA GUPTA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 1 S.C.R. 22 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4714 of 2006) JANUARY 5, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Service Law: c Punjab Education Service Class-Ill (School Cadre) Rules, 1955: r.10 - Government of Punjab letter dated 1.9.1960 - Providing for advance increments to Masters on acquiring post graduate qualification - Benefit - Benefit under letter D dated 1.9.1960 claimed by teachers faffing in State of Haryana on its formation - Held: Teachers employed under Government of Haryana could claim the benefit in terms of the policy decisions taken by Government of undivided Punjab only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made E effective from 1. 12. 1967, and not thereafter. The respondents, employed as teachers under the Government of Haryana, claimed advance increments in terms of Punjab Government to Memo dated 1.9.1960. The F Director of Secondary Education, Haryana rejected their claim on the premise that in terms of Rule.10 of the Punjab Education Service Class-Ill (School Cadre) Rules, 1955, the pay scales of the teachers were subject to variation from time to time, and since the State of Haryana revised G the pay scales of various categories of teaches w.e.f. 1.12.1967, Memo dated 1.9.1960 stood superseded. He also observed that higher start of pay with advance increments for post graduate qualification was provided only to Masters/Mistresses and not to other categories of H 22 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA 23 & ORS. teachers. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and A directed that the respondents be given advance increments in terms of the Punjab Government Memo dated 1.9.1960 and the letter dated 5.1.1968 of the Government of Haryana. Aggrieved, the State of Haryana filed the appeals. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The teachers employed under the Government of Haryana could claim benefit of the higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of the policy C decisions taken by the Government of undivided Punjab and instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made effective from 1.12.1967, and not thereafter. [Para 14] [39-E-F] D 1.2. The question of revision of pay scales of the teachers employed under the Government of Haryana was considered by the Education Commission which is also known as Kothari Commission. The recommendations made by that Commission were E accepted by the President of India and were implemented by the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967. After revision of the pay scales of various categories of teachers, the Government of Haryana issued instructions vide letters dated 26.7.1972, 26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for F grant of monetary benefits in the form of personal pay to those Government .servants who improved their qualifications by undertaking further studies within the country and abroad. Further, by letter No. 4718-2GS-11-77/ 17173 dated 20.6.1977, all the existing instructions were superseded and fresh instructions were issued on the G subject. However, the decisions contained in letter dated 20.6.1977 and other related communications were withdrawn by the State Government by letter dated 20.12.1982. [Para 8 to 10] [33-B-C; 35-A-B; 36-F-G] H 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A 1.3. The High Court erred in accepting the plea of the respondents that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions. All the financial benefits including increments admissible to the B teachers in terms of extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration by Kothari Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales. If this was not so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to first and second class c graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of the cadre) were prescribed; similarly, there was no justification to give one advance increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional 0 training; equally, there was no occasion for the State Government to give additional benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on improving qualifications after joining Govt. service. This being the position
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.