IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.: 5955 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.7.2010 Smt. Pushp Lata … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. J.R.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The main relief claimed by the petitioner is that since she had improved her educational qualifications prior to 27.09.1979 she should be given higher scale of pay as per the then existing instructions. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner is working as a Home Science Teacher. She acquired the higher qualifications of B.A. Part-1 in the year 1976. She claimed that she should be given the benefit of higher scale of pay from the date of acquisition of higher qualifications in terms of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 letter dated 13.12.1958. The stand of the State is that the higher scale of pay is not admissible to Home Science Teacher and is only admissible to Classical and Vernacular Teachers (C&V teachers). According to the State, Home Science Teachers and Art and Craft Teachers form an isolated cadre and these instructions are not applicable to them. The State placed reliance on the letter dated 27.9.1979 (Annexure RA) in this behalf. In fact, this letter does not help the respondents. Relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- “However, in order to avoid discrimination between teachers who have already been allowed higher scales of pay on account of having improved their qualifications and those have not yet been allowed this benefit even though they also possess higher qualification it is decided that all teachers in the Education Department who have improved their qualification before issue of this letter may be allowed the benefit of higher scale of pay on the basis of their qualification. This benefit shall not be allowed to those who are appointed or improve their qualification after the issuance of this letter.” (Emphasis supplied) 3 3. A bare perusal of this portion of the letter shows that w.e.f. 27.9.1979 it was decided not to give any benefit on acquisition of higher qualifications. However, to avoid discrimination between teachers who had already been granted such benefit prior to issuance of letter dated 27.9.1979 and teachers who had attained higher qualifications prior to this date but had not been granted such benefit the Government took a decision, and rightly so, that this letter dated 27.9.1979 would not be applicable to them and they would also be entitled to such benefit. From a perusal of letter Annexure RA it cannot be deciphered that this benefit was limited to C&V teachers and was not to be made available to other teachers of the Education Department who improved their qualifications. In fact, the wording of the letter clearly shows that all teachers of the Education Department who had improved their qualifications prior to 27.9.1979 would be entitled to benefit of grant of higher scale of pay. 4. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to 4 grant of higher pay scale from the date he attained the higher qualifications. However, since the petitioner approached the Court only on 29.6.1999 the benefit shall be given to her from 1.7.1996 i.e. three years prior to the filing of the petition so that it would be within the period of limitation. The amount due and payable to the petitioner shall be paid alongwith interest @ 6% per annum within four months from today. If this amount is not paid within four months the interest shall be payable @ 12% per annum. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 26th July, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.