2010 Supreme(SC) 11

2010 (1) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
State of Haryana and others — Appellants
versus
Hem Lata Gupta and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4714 of 2006
Decided on : 5-01-2010

Headnote:Service Law – Grant of advance increments – Entitlement to – Appeals against orders of High Court whereby alleged denial of advance increments to writ petitioners respondents had been declared illegal and appellants had been directed to grant them increments in terms of instructions issued by Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960 and the Government of Haryana vide letter dated 5.1.1968 – The argument of respondents, which found favour with High Court that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive in first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, held that said argument is fallacious and should have been rejected by High Court – All the financial benefits including increments admissible to the teachers in terms of extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration by Kothari Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales – If this was not so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to first and second class graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of the cadre) were prescribed – Similarly, there was no justification to give one advance increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional training – Equally, there was no occasion for the State Government to give additional benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on improving qualifications after joining Govt. service – This being the position, held that High Court was not right in holding that decision taken by President of India to accept the recommendations of Kothari Commission for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and grant of revised pay scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have effect of superseding policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960- Hence held that teachers employed under Government of Haryana could claim benefit of higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of the policy decisions taken by Government of undivided Punjab and instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter – Again while deciding writ petitions filed by respondents, High Court neither adverted to reasons assigned by Director for rejecting respondents’ claim for advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated 30.7.1998. – The High Court also failed to notice that writ petitions were filed not only by Masters/Mistresses, but also by other categories of teachers i.e., Lecturers, Language Teachers, Physical Training Instructors etc. who could not, by any stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab which was confined to the Masters Only – Hence , on this ground also the direction given by High Court for grant of advance increments to respondents held unsustainable – Impugned orders set aside-Appeals allowed. (Paras 13, 14, 21 to 23)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against orders of High Court whereby alleged denial of advance increments to writ petitioners respondents had been declared illegal and appellants had been directed to grant them increments in terms of instructions issued by Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960 and the Government of Haryana vide letter dated 5.1.1968.

       Findings of the Court :

        The argument of respondents, which found favour with High Court that revision of the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967 did not result in automatic supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive in first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, held that said argument is fallacious and should have been rejected by High Court . All the financial benefits including increments admissible to the teachers in terms of extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration by Kothari Commission while recommending grant of revised pay scales. If this was not so, there could be no warrant for separately giving one advance increment to first and second class graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay scales of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of the cadre) were prescribed. Similarly, there was no justification to give one advance increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional training. Equally, there was no occasion for the State Government to give additional benefit by way of increments in the form of personal pay to the employees on improving qualifications after joining Govt. service. This being the position, held that High Court was not right in holding that decision taken by President of India to accept the recommendations of Kothari Commission for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and grant of revised pay scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have effect of superseding policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960. Hence held that teachers employed under Government of Haryana could claim benefit of higher pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of the policy decisions taken by Government of undivided Punjab and instructions issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter. Again while deciding writ petitions filed by respondents, High Court neither adverted to reasons assigned by Director for rejecting respondents’ claim for advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated 30.7.1998. The High Court also failed to notice that writ petitions were filed not only by Masters/Mistresses, but also by other categories of teachers i.e., Lecturers,Language Teachers, Physical Training Instructors etc. who could not, by any stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab which was confined to the Masters Only.Hence , on this ground also the direction given by High Court for grant of advance increments to respondents was held unsustainable. Impugned orders were set aside. Appeals allowed.

       Result : Appeals allowed.