STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus JASBIR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
JASBIR SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pay scale-Revision in-Teachers appointed on transfer basis as 
C lecturer-Claim for pay scale of lecturer-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled in 
terms of Government Order dated 3.8.1990 which categorically mentions that 
concerned officers were appointed on transfer basis in their awn present p:iy 
scale and they are not entitled to any monetary benefits. 
Respondents were working as teachers. On the basis of Government 
D Order, certain officials were to be appointed on deputation and on transfer 
basis, in their present pay scales. Respondents were accordingly posted and 
on transfer they were appointed as lecturers. They filed writ petition wherein 
they claimed the pay scales as applicable to lecturers from the date of the 
initial deputation till absorption as lecturers. High Court held that the 
E respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers and, therefore, 
from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they were entitled 
to the revised scale of pay. Aggrieved State filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: I. It was categorically mentioned in the Government order dated 
G 
H 
3.8.1990 that the concerned officers were appointed on deputation and on 
transfer basis, in their own present pay scale and they were not entitled to 
any monetary benefit, seniority etc. In view of the clear stipulations, the High 
Court fell into grave error in holding that the respondents were entitled to 
pay scale applicable to lecturers. (644-F, GI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2999 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2002 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5857/1999, 3243 
and 8774/2000. 
642 
STATEOFPUNJABv. JASBIRSINGH [PASA YAT,J.] 
643 
Sarup Singh. AAG, Punjab and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
A 
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondents are entitled 
to pay at a scale applicable to lecturer, from the date of the initial deputation 
till absorption as lecturer. 
Undisputed background, are essentially as follows: 
B 
c 
Respondents were working as teachers designated as masters in the 
Punjab Education Department. On· the basis of the Government order No. 22/ 
7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated 20.07.90 certain officials were appointed on 
deputation and on transfer basis in their present pay scale against the post D 
mentioned against each. Nine persons were accordingly posted and on transfer 
they were appointed as lecturers. The Government order dated 3.8.1990 is of 
significance to which we shall advert infra. The respondents made a claim that 
they were entitled to the pay scales as lecturers since they were on deputation 
and the experience as lecturer should be computed in the parent department. E 
The High Court held that the claim of arrears of salary for the period from 1989 
onwards is on account of difference in the scale of pay. The same was found 
to be belated and acco1 dingly the prayer was rejected. However, it was 
noticed that the respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers 
and therefore, from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they 
were entitled to the revised scale of pay. 
F 
In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted 
that the order dated 3.8.1990 clearly indicated that the claim for any sort of 
monetary benefit or experience benefit was not available. After having accepted 
that the claim was belated the High Court should not have treated it to be 
a case of continuing cause of action. The claim was highly belated and, G 
therefore, no relief was available. The effect of the order dated 3 .8.1990 has 
been completely lost sight of by the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in 
the year, 1989, the High Court as noted above, dismissed the claim for arrear 
of sa:aries and had directed the present appellants to grant the benefit of 
salary rendered from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization. H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that 
the respondents having r

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