Judgment

I. Factual canvas

The earliest appeal in this Batch was filed by the State of Haryana and The Director of Public Instructions, Haryana. The appeal came to be filed in this Court in somewhat peculiar circumstances. The order of the High Court against which the appeal was filed was passed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 3rd December, 1988 in CWP 7122/88 on the basis of consent of counsel on both sides. The order was in the following terms :

“The parties’ counsel agree that this petition is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bhagwan Dutt Sharma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., ILR 1988, Vol. II Punjab 246. There will be an order in terms of the ratio given in that case.”

2. The said writ petition was filed in the High Court by the respond­ents in the appeal. They were working as Teachers/ Masters/Mistresses in different schools of Haryana. They had acquired post graduate qualifications while in service. The relevant particulars were given by them in the Writ Petition. According to them, the erstwhile State of Punjab had issued a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 raising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f. 1st May, 1957 and that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled to pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them irrespective of the post held by them. It was their case that the policy decision of the Punjab Govern­ment was adopted by the Haryana Government after it was formed. The latter issued an order directing further revision of the scales of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968. Reliance was placed by the writ petitioners on the recommendations contained in the report of Kothari Commission which has been accepted by the Government. The writ petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in Chaman Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana1 and stated that they were entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on the basis of their qualifications as they had become post graduates. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners in accordance with Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition on the basis of higher qualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court in Chaman Lal’s Case and also for release of consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay, arrears etc. alongwith 12 interest.

3. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in the appeal. When it was taken up for hearing, the counsel on both sides agreed that the matter was covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Sharma’s Case ILR 1988 Vol. II Punjab 248. Hence the High Court passed the order as stated above.

4. Thereafter the first petitioner in the writ petition filed a petition for contempt to punish the appellants in the appeal for not paying the writ petitioners as per the pay scale applicable to lectur­ers. The High Court issued notice on the application for contempt. On receipt of such notice, the Government and The Director of Public Instructions thought fit to file a petition for Special Leave in this Court along with an application for condonation of delay in presenta­tion of the same. Obviously, the Government assumed that because the High Court had issued notice in the proceedings of contempt, orders would be passed against it in those proceedings and instead of contesting the same, the Government presented the petition for Special Leave in this Court. The delay was condoned by order dated 17th August, 1990 and leave was granted. In the application for stay, this Court passed the following order:

“After hearing both counsel, we are of the opinion that there should be no stay of the High Court’s orders so far as this petition is concerned. If, however, the State ultimately succeeds, it will be entitled to appropriate relief.”

5. Though, this Court referred to grant stay, it is admitted before us by counsel on both sides th