STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SAVINDERJIT KAUR

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 18-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SAVINDERJIT KAUR 
MARCH 18, ·2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 19781 
Notification dated 17.2.1989 issued by the Government of Punjab: 
C 
Revision in the pay scale of teachers-Sewing Teacher claiming higher 
scale of pay at par with Music/Vernacular teachers-Representation rejected 
by the authority concerned-Challenge to-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, 
Held: Such classification in the scale of pay permissible-Requisite educational D 
qualifications are different for the two categories of teachers-Since it has not 
been established that duties and functions of different categories of teachers 
are at par, doctrine of equal pay for equal work not applicable-The State 
Government granted different scale of pay in terms of Notification-Notification 
has not been challenged-Hence, judgment of High Court could not be 
sustained and set aside. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136-
Held: Higher scale of pay has already been granted to Respondent, a 
handicapped teacher-Not a fit case in which Supreme Court could exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 136. 
E 
F 
Respondent, Sewing Teacher, submitted a representation claiming 
higher scale of pay as applicable to Music/Vernacular Teachers. Her 
representation was rejected by the authority concerned. Aggrieved by the 
order of the authority, a writ petition was field by her before the High 
Court, which was allowed. Hence the present appeal and the connected G 
appeal. 
It was contended by the appellants that the High Court failed to take 
into consideration that the State Government has classified Sewing 
Teachers and other teachers in different categories in terms of the Punjab 
243 
H 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A State Education Class-Ill (School Cadre) ServiCe Rules framed as per 
provisions under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; that the requisite 
educational qualifications and method of recruitment are different for 
different categories of teachers; and that on revision in the scale of pay 
of the teaching staff, different scales of pay had been granted to·different 
B categories of teachers. 
c 
Respondent submitted that she was a handicapped person; and that 
various other similarly situated teachers/Sewing Teachers have been 
getting the scale of pay as applicable to MusicNernacular Teachers. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.1. The High Court proceeded on a wrong prrmise in 
passing the impugned judgment. In a case of this nature, even the doctrine 
of equal pay for equal work would not apply since it has not been 
established that duties and functions of two categories of the employees/ 
D teachers are at par. Furthermore, a classification based on different 
educational qualifications is permissible. 1246-C-GI 
Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1988) 4 SLR 199 and Prabjot Kaur 
v. State of Punjab, (1964) 3 SCT 262, distinguished. 
E 
1.3. High Court while passing the impugned judgment did not 
address itself as regard to applicability of the 1978 Rules as also the scales 
of pay granted to different categories of teachers by the Government of 
Punjab in terms of its Notification dated 17.2.1989. Since the validity of 
the Notification has not been questioned, the impugned judgment of the 
High Court cannot be sustained. However, having regard to the fact that 
F the respondent had been granted the same scale of pay and keeping in 
view of the fact that she is a handicapped teacher, it is not a fit case where 
this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the 
Constitution of India. 1247-A; 248-B, Cl 
Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (20031 6 SCC 
G 545, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
H High Court in C.W.P. No. 11309 of 1997. 
\ 
f 
;i 
• 
STATE v. S. KAUR [SINHA, J.] 
245 
WITH 
A 
C.A. No. 3693 of 2000. 
Ranbir Yadav and_ R.S. Suri for the Appellants. 
Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Respondent. 
B 
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia (NP) for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3693/2000. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B, SINHA, J. These two appeals involving identical question of law C 
and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this 
common judgment. 
The factual matrix is, however,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.