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

1988 Supreme(SC) 159

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers Union (Non-Petitioners) and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Writ Petns. Nos. 63 and 499 of 1986 and 445, 213 with 1324 of 1986,
D/- 23-2-1988.
AND
Higher Qualified Teachers (Adhoc) Association, Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others, RespondentS.
AND
Kirpal Singh, Petitioner
Versus
 State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
WITH
Non-Gazetted Employees Organisation (Teachers Wing), Petitioner
Versus
The Director of Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab and others, Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.SHARAN, G.S.CHATTERJEE, R.S.SODHI

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Benefit of higher grade of pay - Petitions filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B, Group II in terms of paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular who have been continuously and unrelentlessly struggling to get the benefit of higher grade of pay on their improving or acquiring higher qualification viz. B.A., as per the terms thereof, and the persistent refusal of the State Government to adhere to the terms of the said Circular mainly on the ground that such teachers on their improving or acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service would not automatically be placed in different grades commensurate with their academic qualifications unless they had the professional qualification of requisite experience of a post carried in the higher grade irrespective of the number of posts available in the department in that category –Held, Court must accordingly uphold the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to higher pay on acquiring or improving their academic qualification – It is regrettable that despite clear pronouncements made by this Court as well as the High Court in a long line of decisions starting with Kirpal Singh Bhatias case, there is no redressal of the wrong done to JBT Teachers belonging to Category 3 Group II although they had acquired B.A.,B.T./BA.,B.Ed, qualifications – Fact the 1968 order expressly stated that the government had accepted the Kothari Commissions report in regard to scales of pay and as already pointed out by us the main feature of the Kothari Commissions report in regard to pay was the linking of pay to qualification – That was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced in Kirpal Singh Bhatia case – Even subsequently when several writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and when the government issued consequential orders, it was never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from the principle of qualification linked pay – There was no need for any special sanction for the grant of Masters grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed BA, B.Ed – That was already the position when obtained both as a result of the 1957 and 1968 orders and the several judgments of the court – Court do not think that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in departing from the rule in the judgment under appeal – Petitions allowed.

Judgment

SEN, J. :- This is a batch of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution filed on behalf of Matriculate Junior Basic Trained Teachers in Government Schools placed in Category B, Group II in terms of paragraph 3 of the State Government Circular dated July 23, 1957 who have been continuously and unrelentlessly struggling to get the benefit of higher grade of pay on their improving or acquiring higher qualification viz. B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed./Matric with JST/Gyani or Prabhakar, as per the terms thereof, and the persistent refusal of the State Government to adhere to the terms of the said Circular mainly on the ground that such teachers on their improving or acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service would not automatically be placed in different grades commensurate with their academic qualifications unless they had the professional qualification of requisite experience of a post carried in the higher grade irrespective of the number of posts available in the department in that category. It is asserted that the aforesaid Circular was couched in somewhat ambiguous language and has resulted in different interpretations and it was never the intention of the Government to undertake the continuing unintended heavy financial burden that had arisen because of the faulty drafting of the Circular.

2. It is common ground that by the aforesaid Circular dated July 23, 1957 the State Government directed revision of the existing pay scales of various categories of subordinate offices including Teachers in the Education Department. Paragraph 3 thereof provided for revision of pay-scales of Teachers and placed them into two distinct categories, namely, Category A and Category B and inter alia laid down the requirement of academic qualifications with respect to each. The relevant part of paragraph 3 reads as follows :

"3. Teachers in the Education Department : It has been decided that all teachers according to their qualifications should be placed in the following two broad categories :

CATEGORY A

B.A./B.Sc/B.Com/B.Sc.(Agriculture)/ and B.T./Diploma in Physical Education/ Diploma in Senior Basic Training.

CATEGORY B

Group I - Matrics with Basic Training (including Junior Teachers)

Group II - Junior School Teachers (including Assistant Mistresses with B.A./ Inter/Matric plus J.A.V. Training).

3. It is quite evident that the revision of pay of Teachers was based on the principle of linking pay to qualification. It would not be out of place to mention that the Kothari Commission constituted by the State Government of Punjab considered in great detail the scales of pay of Teachers. The Commission strongly expressed the view that the scales of pay of Teachers should be linked to educational qualifications. Accepting the recommendations of the Kothari Commission, the State Government of Haryana in 1968 directed further revision of scales of pay of Teachers working in Government Schools w. e. f. December 1, 1967.

4. On more occasions than one, this Court had to intervene on behalf of these unfortunate Teachers for the redressal of the wrong done to them by denial of higher scales of pay on their improving or acquiring higher academic qualifications and issued directions for extending the benefit of paragraph 3 of the Circular to them. Despite the repeated directions, the State Government has been adamant in not complying with such directions on one pretext or another. In State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia, (1976) 1 SCR 529 this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia, 1972 Serv LR 402 directing that Teachers holding B.A., B.T./B.A., B.Ed. qualifications would be entitled to the higher scale of pay. The Court construed the aforesaid Circular as falling within the ambit of R. 10 of the Punjab Educational Services Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 as to the entitlement of higher scales of pay and held that it had the effect of fixing the scale of pay on the basis of


















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