vil Appeal No 1371 of 1980 ETC
 ETC
From the Judgment and Order dated 2981978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No 12201978
Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioners
VC Mahajan CV Subba Rao IS Goel and NS Das Bahl for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
The appellants in the Civil Appeal and the petitioners in the Writ Petitions are all trained Graduates  that is to say all of them possess the BEd
or BT degree in addition to the BA degree
They are teach ers in Government schools in the State of Haryana
They did not possess the BEd
or BT degree when they joined serv ice initially
They acquired the BEd
or BT degree quali fication subsequent to their joining service which was between the years 1953 and 1973
Some of them acquired the BEd
or BT degree qualification before September 5 1979 and in some cases after September 5 1979
The importance of the date September 5 1979 will become evident as we proceed to state the facts
It appears that in the Haryana Educational Service there were two categories of teachers described as Masters and Basic Trained teachers
25 of the posts of Masters were reserved for promotion from the posts of Basic Trained teachers
Masters could be promoted to higher posts
There appears to have been some dissatisfac tion regarding the scales of pay for teachers and so in 1957 there was a revision of the scales of pay by an order dated July 23 1957
All teachers according to their quali fications 926 were placed in two broad categories category A  consisting of BA BSCBComBSc Agriculture and BT and Catego ry B  consisting of 4 groups of whom Group 1 was Matrics with basic training including JBT
The Government order mentioned the scales of pay as Category A  Rs110 8 19010 250 with a higher start for MA  MSc
As at present
The existence percentage of posts fixed by Government for scales of Rs110 8 19010 250 and Rs250 300 should remain unchanged at 35 and 15 respectively
Category B  Lower Rs60 4 805 120 Middle Rs120 5 175
Upper Rs140 10 200
With a view to providing incentives it has been decided that posts falling in these groups should be in the following as Group I Lower Scale 85 Middle Scale 15 15 of teachers in this group should straight away be promoted to the middle scale by a selection based on seniority and merits while the rest should be given the lower scale
 What is important to be noticed here is that the scale of pay was linked to the qualification
A question was raised whether teachers who started as Basic Trained teachers and later acquired the BEd or BT qualification but who could not be adjusted against posts of Masters would be entitled to the grade of Rs110 250 Answering a query the Secretary of the Department of Education replied Your presumption that teachers holding BA BTBA BEd
qualifications would henceforth be placed in Category A  is confirmed
The question also came to be considered judi cially first by the High Court of Punjab  Haryana and later by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Kirpal Singh Bhatia  The Supreme Court affirming the judgment of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana held as follows The High Court rightly referred to the letter of the Secretary of the Department dated 24th September 1957 that teachers holding BA BTBA BEd
qualification 927 would henceforth be placed in Category A 
The High Court tightly came to the conclusion that the scale of pay of Rs110 250 Would be effective either from the date when the teach ers would pass the examination of Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent or 1st May 1957 whichever is latter
 While the writ petitions were pending in the High Court the Government of Haryana issued an order directing further revision of the scales of pay of teachers working in Govern ment schools in 1960
It was expressly stated in the order that the scales of pay were being revised consequent on the acceptance of the recommendations of the Kothati Commis sion
One of the questions which the Kothari Commission had considered in great detail was the scales of pay of teach ers
The Commission had strongly expressed the view that the scales of pay should be linked to educational qualifica tions
In paragraph 315 of their report the Commission said 315 Our first proposal is that the existing multiplicity of scales of pay should be re duced and that there should be three main scales of pay for school teachers 1 A scale of pay for teachers who have completed the secondary course and are trained and who would form the vast bulk of teachers at the primary stage 2 A scale of pay for trained graduates who would form a small proportion of teachers at the primary stage but the vast bulk of teachers at the lower secondary stage 3 A scale of pay for teachers with post graduate qualifications who would form a small proportion of teachers at the lower secondary stage but the bulk of teachers at the higher secondary stage
Incentives to teachers of special subjects or to teachers with additional quali fications can be given in the form of advance increments or special allowance
The scales of pay of special teachers ie for drawing craft physical education etc can also be related to these three basic scales in some suitable manner
The scales of pay for librar ians should also be related to those for teachers in a suitable manner
 928 Again in paragraph 3163 they said Our attention has been drawn to an anomaly which must be removed as early as possible
Several States restrict on finan cial grounds the number of posts which carry the scale of trained teachers who have com pleted the secondary school course
The re maining posts are usually assigned to lower scales of pay sanctioned for teachers with lower qualifications
Not infrequently per sons with lower qualifications are recruited to these posts even when qualified and trained teachers are available
This is bad enough but what is worse even trained and qualified teachers who are recruited against the posts are given not the salaries of qualified and trained teachers to which they are entitled but the lower salaries meant for these posts
As the completion of secondary school course and two years of professional trained are accepted as the minimum qualification for a primary teacher this practice should be abandoned as early as possible and the princi ple adopted that every trained teacher who has completed the secondary school course received the scale of pay sanctioned for such teachers
This will remove an injustice now being done to a large number of teachers in service and create an incentive for unqualified or un trained teachers to become qualified and trained
 In Paragraph 3173 they said The scales of pay of trained graduate teach ers should have a minimum of Rs220 rising to Rs400 in a period of about 20 years
There should be a selection grade which would rise to Rs500 and be available to about 15 per cent of the cadre
 We mentioned earlier that even in 1957 the Government of Punjab which at that time included Haryana had already accepted the principle of linking pay to qualification as evident from their order dated July 23 1957
Accepting the Kothari Commission s recommendations they revised the scales of pay with effect from December 1 1967 in the following manner 929 Sr Category of teachers Revised Grade No ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 1
JBTJSTJAVC  V i Rs125 5 1505 250 teachers drawing masters
for 85 of the cadre Tailoring Mistress Art  ii Rs250 10for 15 of Craft teachers Demestic the cadre
Science Mustresses  Shashtries
NB The untrained teachers with High SecondaryMatricula tion qualifications will draw the starting of Rs100 per mensem and they will be integrated in the regular pay of scales Only after they attain necessary provisional qualifi cation
i Rs220 8 30010 400 for 85 of the cadre 2
MastersMistresses ii Rs400 20 500 Trained Graduates for 15 of the cadre NB i The 1st and 2nd class Graduates will be entitled to draw one advance increment in addition
ii The untrained Graduates will be allowed the starting salary of Rs200 per mensem and will be entitled for the regular scales of pay only after attaining the prescribed professional training
 Though the 1968 order had come into force with effect from December 1 1967 it was not suggested either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court when Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case was decided that the 1968 order had made any departure from the principle of the 1957 order that trained Graduates would be entitled to the higher scales of pay
The question however was raised in Civil Writ No 2505 of 1972 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and it was decided in that case that teachers who did not originally possess the BTBEd
qualification but who acquired such qualifi cation on various dates between 1960 and 1970 were entitled to the higher scale of pay of Rs220 300 400 with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualifica tion irrespective of the dates on which they were adjusted against the posts of Masters
After the judgment of the High Court was pronounced consequential orders were issued by the Government on November 20 1973
The question arose again in Civil Writ No 1991 of 930 1976 and other cases when it was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on November 1980 with the following order The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter in this and writ petitions Nos 1991 of 1976 3829 of 1975 4449 of 1974 5227 of 1975 5539 of 1975 2247 of 1973 7726 of 1976 and 7813 is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported as State of Punjab and Others vs Kirpal Singh Bhatia and Others 1975 2 Service Law Re porter 621 and these petitioners have to be allowed to in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court
The learned Advocate General Har yana states that the benefit which flowed because of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case supra has been given to the petitioners in all these peti tions
Mr JL Gupta learned counsel for the petitioners shows ignorance about this fact
Whatever be the circumstances the petitioners are allowed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case supra with no order as to costs
 It is thus seen that from 1957 to 1980 whenever the question arose it was always accepted that teachers who acquired the BT or BEd
qualification would be entitled to the higher scale of pay as soon as they acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters
The adjustment against the posts of Masters was relevant for the purpose of seniority in the posts of Masters and for the further purpose of promotion from that post
So far as the scale of pay was concerned irrespective of adjustment against the post of Master a teacher was always held to be entitled to the higher scale of pay from the date of the acquisition of the BT or B Ed qualification
On September 5 1979 the Government of Haryana issued an order in the following words Sanction of the Governor of Haryana is hereby accorded wef
591979 of the grant of Masters grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who have passed BABEd
 subject to the following conditions 931 i That the expenditure involved would be met from the savings of the current year revised sanctioned estimates
ii That these teachers will not be allowed any seniority in the cadre of masters
iii That it will not form a precedent for future
iv That the award of Master s grade to the concerned teachers would be personal to them This order of the Government is now sought to be interpreted and it has been so interpreted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the judgment under appeal that those teachers who had acquired the BT or BEd
qualification subsequent to December 1 1967 the date on which the 1968 order came into force and before September 5 1979 would be entitled to the higher grade but with effect from September 5 1979 only and that those who acquired the qualification subse quent to September 5 1979 would not be entitled to the higher grade
According to the judgment of the High Court under Appeal the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order that teachers acquiring BT or BEd
quali fication should get the higher grade and that a concession was shown in 1979 enabling the teachers who acquired the BT or BEd
qualification between 1968 and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979
In our opinion this is plainly to ignore all the events that took place between 1957 and 1980
The principle that pay should be linked to qualifica tion was accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case was argued in the High Court and in the Supreme Court there was not the slightest whisper that the principle had been departed from in the 1968 order
In fact the 1968 order expressly stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari Commission s report in regard to scale of pay was the linking of pay to qualification
That was apparently the reason why no such argument was advanced in Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case
Even subsequently when sever al writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and when the Government issued consequen tial orders it was never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from the principle of qualification linked pay
The 1968 order must be read in the light of the 1957 order and the report of the Kethari Commission which was accepted
If so read there can be no doubt that the Government never intended to retract from the principle that teachers acquir ing the BT or BEd
would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring 932 that qualification
The 1979 order was indeed superfluous
There was no need for any special sanction for the grant of Master s grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed BA BEd
That was already the position which obtained both as a result of the 1957 and 1958 orders and the several judgments of the Court
We do not think that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in departing from the rule in the judgment under appeal
The rule had been well estab lished and consistently acted upon
Nor was it open to the Government to act upon the principle in some cases and depart from it in other cases
In the result we allow the appeal and the Writ Petitions and direct the respondents to give the higher grade admissible to Masters to all the teachers who have acquired the BTBEd
qualification with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification
The appellants and the petitioners are enti tled to their costs
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
In the Haryana Educational Service there were two categories of teachers described as Masters and Basic Trained Teachers
25 of the posts of Masters were reserved for promotion from the posts of Basic Trained teachers
Masters could be promoted to higher posts
By an order dated July 23 1957 there was a revision of the scales of pay
Teachers were placed according to their qualifications in two categories Catetogy A consisting of BA BCom BSc
Agriculure and BT and Category B  consisting of four groups of whom Group I was Matric with basic training including JBT
The scale of pay was linked to the qualification and for category A  it was Rs110 250 with a higher start for MA and MSc
and for Category B  it was Lower Rs60 120 Middle Rs120 175 and Upper Rs140 200
While Kripal Singh Bhatia s case and other petitions were pending the Government of Haryana issued an order further revising the scales of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968 consequent on the acceptance of the recommendations of the Kothari Commission with effect from December 1 1967
There was however no departure from the principle of the 1957 order that trained graduates would be entitled to the higher scales of pay
On September 5 1979 the Government issued an order granting Masters grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed BA BEd
subject to certain conditions
This order was challenged before the High Court by trained graduates  ie those who possessed the BEd
or BT degree in addi tion to BA degree
They did not possess this degree ini tially but acquired it subsequent to their joining service which was between 1953 and 1973
The High Court held that those teachers who had acquired the BT or BEd
qualifica tion subsequent to December 1 1967 the date on which the 1968 order came into force 924 and before September 5 1979 would be entitled to the Higher grade but with effect from September 5 1979 only and that those who acquired the qualification subsequent to September 5 1979 would not be entitled to the higher grade
It fur ther held that the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957 order that teachers acquiring BT or BEd
quali fication should get the higher grade and that a concession was shown in 1979 enabling the teachers who acquired the BT or BEd
qualification between 1968 and 1969 to get the higher scale from 1979
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
From 1957 to 1980 it was always accepted that teachers who acquired the BT or BEd
qualification would be entitled to the higher scale of pay as soon as they acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters
The adjust ment against the posts of Masters was relevant for the purpose of seniority in the post of Masters and for the further purpose of promotion from that post
So far as the scale of pay was concerned irrespective of adjustment against the post of Masters a teacher was always held entitled to the higher scale of pay from the date of the acquisition of the BT or BEd
qualification
930E G 2
It is plain that the High Court has ignored all the events that took place between 1957 and 1980
The principle that pay should be linked to qualification was accepted by the Punjab Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh Bhatia s case was argued in the High Court and this Court there was not the slightest whisper that the principle had been de parted from in the 1968 order
In fact the 1968 order ex pressly stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari Commission s report in regard to the scales of pay and the main feature of the report with regard to pay was the link ing of pay to qualification
The High Court was not justi fied in departing from rule which had been well established and consistently acted upon it was not open to the State Government to act upon the principle in some cases and depart from it in other cases
931E G 932B 3
The 1968 order must be read in the light of the 1957 order and the report of the Kothari Commission which was accepted
If so read there could be no doubt that the Gov ernment never intended to retract from the principle that teachers acquiring the BT or BEd
qualification would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification
The 1979 order was indeed superfluous
There was no need for any special sanction for the grant of 925 Master s grade to unadjusted JBT teachers who had passed BA BEd
That was already the position which obtained both as a result of 1957 and 1968 orders and the several judgments of the Court
931G H 932A B The respondents directed to give the higher grade admissible to Masters to all the teachers who have acquired the BTBEd
qualification with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the qualification
State of Punjab and another vs Kirpal Singh Bhatia  Ors   referred to