THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 21-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
.• 
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
A 
• 
v. 
KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Pay scale-Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in school~Acquiring 
post graduate qualifications-Claim for higher pay scale applicable to Lee- c 
turers without actually being appointed to that post-Entitlement of-Held, 
not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Lee-
turer~State Government pennitted to recover excess payments made-Con-
tempt petition pending before High Court dismissed'-Punjab Educational 
Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 195~Haryana State Education 
D 
Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. 
Respondents were working as teachers/Masters/Mistresses in dif-
ferent schools of appellant-State. On acquiring post graduate qualifica-
tions while in service, they claimed higher pay scales avplicable to 
Lecturers without actually appointed to that post. They placed reliance E 
upon the Govt. Letters/Circulars dated 23.7.1957 and 5.1.1968. In the writ 
petition before the High Court as parties agreed that the matter was 
squarely covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of High Court in 
Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case, an order was passed in terms of the ratio 
given in that case. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, filed a contempt petition 
before the High Court for non-payment of pay scales applicable to lee-
F 
turers. Appellants instead of contesting the said contempt petition, filed 
the present appeal. Several writ petitions filed by similarly placed teachers 
were dismissed by High Court negativing their claim. SLPs were preferred 
against those orders also. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
G 
f 
HELD : 1. The Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in different 
schools in appellant State are not automatically entitled to claim higher 
pay scales applicable to Lecturers on acquiring post graduate qualifica-
tions without being appointed as Lecturers. [85-E] 
H 
67 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Gurpal Tuli & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1984) Supp SCC 716; 
Baij Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1976] 8 SCC 516; Wazir Singh !BT 
Teacher and Qrs., v. State of Haryana though its Secretary, Education Depart-
ment & Ors., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 697 and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ravi 
Bala & Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 267, relied on. 
B 
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 
7 40; referred to. 
Punjab Higher Qualified Teacher 'Union & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of 
Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc., [1988) 2 SCC 407; Chaman Lal & Ors. Etc. v. 
C State of Haryana Etc., [1987] 2 SCC 113; Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State 
of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and Haryana P. 246; distinguished. 
2. Before reorganisation of State, school teachers in State of Punjab 
were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre 
Rules, 1955. Appendix 'A' of the s~id Rule setting out the designation of 
D posts did not refer to any post designated as Lecturers. The post of 
lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets of rules and 
never by the 1955 Rules or the amendments thereto. In the letter dated 
23.7.1957, ·issued by the Government regarding pay revision, there is no 
reference to the post to lecturer as there was no such post in the school 
E cadre at that time. After reorganisation, appellant State accepting the 
recommendations of "Kothari Commission", revised the pay scales of 
teachers vide its letter dated 5.1.1968. There is nothing in the said letter 
to show that the post of lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to the 
1955 Rules. There is nothing in the letter to show that the _teachers were 
automatically entitled to became lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay 
F applicable to the lecturers. Thus, a perusal of the Educational Service 
Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments 
from time to time and the subsequent Government policy letters and 
circulars show that the teachers are not entitled to higher pay scales 
applicabl~ to the post of lecturers. [73-F; 74-G; 76-G; 77-B-C; 78-E) 
G 
3. The Full Bench in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case had no occasion to 
consider the question whether the teachers would be entitled to the scales 
of pay applicable to the lecturers automatically on their acquiring post 
graduate qualifications. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be con-
tended that the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench

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