SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1116

2003(8) Supreme 511
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha, J.
State of Haryana & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sumitra Devi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4861 of 1998
Decided on 6-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Neeraj Kumar Jain and Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Alok Sangwan, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Anil Hooda, Dr. G.S. Sangwan and Mrs. Santosh Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Respondents were appointed JBT teachers in 1982-83-Govt. order dated 9-3-1990 for grant of higher pay scale on acquisition of higher qualification-Respondents claimed higher pay scales as they possessed qualifications of B.A. or B.Ed. and High Court allowed their writ-State appeal-Higher qualification had not been acquired after appointment and were not entitled to benefits of circular dated 9-3-1990-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : The circular letter dated 9th March, 1990 clearly states that a higher scale of pay would not be admissible to them despite holding a higher qualification having appointed on a lower post such a higher scales of pay was admissible only to such teacher/masters who had enhanced their educational qualification during the course of service. The petitioners, therefore, were not entitled to higher scale of pay. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that keeping in view the fact that persons having similar qualification are getting higher scales of pay and as such this Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reason. As the persons who have been granted higher scales of pay enhanced their qualification while holding their offices they had been allowed to continue to get a higher scale of pay in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This Court both in Wazir Singh (supra) and Kamal Singh Saharwat (supra) as indicated hereinbefore in no uncertain terms held that even such holders of such offices would not automatically be entitled, on acquisition of a higher qualification as higher scale of pay. The petitioners, as noticed, already had higher qualification and thus not entitled to benefit of any circular whatsoever. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter have not been taken into consideration by the High Court. Further more, even an order cannot be passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which will be contrary to the Statute or statute of the Rules. (Para 5)

       

ORDER

The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc basis as JBT teachers on various dates in the year 1982-1983 in the school run by the State of Haryana. Their qualification is JBT and Prabhakar, which they acquired prior to joining as JBT teacher. In the year 1957, the State of Punjab issued a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 directing that higher pay scale shall be granted to a particular class of teachers on acquiring the particular educational qualification. It is alleged that this Circular was made applicable to the State of Haryana also. Subsequently, on 5th September, 1979, State of Haryana issued an Order which provided for the grant of higher pay scale on acquisition of higher qualification which was superceded by Government Order dated 9th March, 1990 which runs as follows:

"8. In the present revision of pay scale of government employees teaching personnel of the Education Department (hereinafter called the `policy of the Government , in unequivocal terms the Government have expressed their intention to retract from the earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. Relevant portions in the policy of Government dated 9.3.1990 read as follows:

"I am directed to refer to composite Punjab Government Finance Department Circular No. 5056-FR-11/57 dated 23.7.1957 on the subject noted above, which contains the details regarding the revision of the pay scales of various categories of subordinate services (including teachers) done on the recommendations made by the Pay Revisions Committee, then appointed to examine this matter. While evolving revised pay scale in respect of different categories of teachers in the Education Department, in para 3 of the above-mentioned circular two broad categories namely, category A and category B of teachers were mentioned, inter alia laying down the requirements of academic qualifications in their cases. It would not have been intended by the Government that on their acquisition of high academic qualification, various categories of teachers in the lower grades shall automatically be placed in the different higher grade commensurate with their academic qualification. Normally, pay scales of various categories of posts, in any Department are sanctioned keeping in view the minimum qualifications required for each category of posts, besides the duties prescribed for them. Similarly, the teaching posts are sanctioned for various educational institutions keeping in view the subjects and classes, the incumbents of these posts are required to teach and for that specific qualifications are prescribed in the service rule as well as at the time of recruitment. For example, if a B.A., B.Ed. pass candidate with the qualifications of Matric JBT also applied for the post of Matric JBT and is taken into service on the basis of higher qualification, he/she cannot claim the grade of Master/Mistress, but will get the sanctioned scale of pay of teacher meant for Matric JBT. Similarly, if a Matric JBT teacher improves his qualification during the course of service and acquire degree of B.A., B.Ed or of language teacher i.e. O.T. Giani or Prabhakar, he cannot claim the scale of Master i.e. B.A., B.Ed or of language teacher unless he is appointed as Master against the post of Master and language teacher against the post of language teacher for which the minimum qualifications are B.A., B.Ed. and O.T. (Giani or Prabhakar) respectively.

2. As the instructions contained in paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned letter dated 23.7.1957 did not bring out the above-mentioned intentions of the Government in unambiguous terms, it has resulted in different interpretations i.e. automatic grant of higher scales of pay on the basis of qualifications irrespective of number of posts available in the Department in that category... it was never the intention of the State Government to undertake the continuin






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top