JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J.—Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 16359 of 2003.

2. All these cases involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. In all these cases, the basic question involved is whether the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit of Rule 4.4. of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Rules”), Volume-I, Part-I or not ?

4. For convenient disposal of these cases, the brief facts given in C.A. No. 6305 of 2004 [State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Tarlochan Lal & Ors.] are taken into consideration. The writ petitioners were appointed as J.B.T. teachers in the Haryana Education Department. They acquired higher qualifications of B.A./Inter B.Ed. during the course of their service. A notification was issued on 23.7.1957 to the effect that the teachers who have acquired higher qualifications shall be granted higher grade. The writ petitioners who acquired higher qualification were given the grade of Social Study Master and subsequently when they were promoted as Social Study Master they were granted one increment on account of discharge of higher responsibility from the date of promotion as Social Study Master and their initial pay in the promotional grade was fixed under Rule 4.4. Subsequently, the State Government decided that grant of increment on account of discharge of higher qualifications could not be granted to the Social Study Masters, the Drawing and Disbursing Officers withdrew the said increments. The claim of the writ petitioners was that since the increment had been granted because they were discharging higher responsibility while teaching higher classes in schools, therefore, under Rule 4.4 of the Rules they were entitled to the said increment and it cannot be withdrawn.

5. The matter was contested by the State appellants before the High Court and a plea was taken that it is immaterial whether the writ petitioners teach in Class VI or Class X, that does not make any difference, it does not involve discharging of higher responsibility and they were not promoted on administrative posts. It was also pointed out that they had already been granted higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification and therefore, they are not entitled to one additional increment or pay fixation under Rule 4.4 of the Rules. It was not disputed that before promotion which was subsequently granted to the writ petitioners, they were teaching Class I to Class V and on their acquiring higher qualification, they were given the grade of Masters and they were asked to teach the students of Class VI to Class X. The contention of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that since they were discharging the duties of higher responsibility i.e. for teaching the students of Class VI to Class X, therefore, they were entitled to one additional increment and fixation of pay under Rule 4.4.

6. It may be relevant to mention here that the circular dated 23.7.1957 was subsequently modified by the State of Haryana vide Notification dated 9.3.1990 and thereby it was clarified in para 6 of the said circular that the benefit which was given in terms of para 2 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23.7.1957 or any subsequent letters/notifications issued by the State Government, the masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective categories to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possession/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them automatically to claim higher pay scales, meaning thereby that after issuance of this notification, acquisition of higher qualification would not entitle the benefit of higher pay scale i.e. Masters’ pay scale. In these writ petitions which were filed in 1998 before the High Court, perhaps this circular of the State Government dated 9.3.1990 was not brought to the notice of the Court. Be that as it may, in view of the changed policy of the State of Haryana,