IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP NO. 511 of 2001 Date of Decision: 13.5.2008 Babu Ram and another ……Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht Dy. Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J( Oral) The petitioners before this Court, had filed an Original Application No.239/1991 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Briefly stated the grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been granted three increments in terms of letter dated 5.12.1986 issued on behalf of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. Admitted facts are that the petitioners were working Physical Education Teachers with the State of H.P. On 5.12.1986 a communication was issued by the State Government relevant portion of which reads as follow:- “I am directed to say that the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to accord sanction for the grant of three advance increments to Physical Education Teachers with effect from 1.1.1978. ___________________________________________________ whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2. The expenditure involved during the current financial year will be debitable to following head:- “277- Education-B-Secondary Education(b) Secondary Schools (b) (ii) Govt. Middle Schools, ( Non-Plan).” 3. This sanction is, however, subject to the condition that the expenditure involved during the current financial year shall be met out of the savings under the head mentioned above. 4. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O. No.1928- Fin ( C ) B(7)44/77-III dated 19.6.86 Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary(Edu) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh According to the petitioners, they are entitled to the grant of three increments in terms of this letter. However, the prayer of the petitioners was not accepted by District Education Officers concerned who sent a letter dated 27.3.1987 to the various Principals/ Headmasters in the schools of Solan. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follow:- “Please refer to your letter No.GGHS-Arki-5/87, dated 24.3.87 The pay fixation case alongwith S/B is returned herewith the remarks that:- the P.E.T.s who are drawing basic pay more than Rs.620/- as on 1.1.1978 are not entitled for three advance increments. The same may be resubmitted after doing the needful for further approval. Sd/- Distt. Education Officer Solan, Distt Solan, H.P. According to the District Education Officer those Physical Education Teachers who were drawing salary more than Rs.620/- on 3 1.1.1978 were not entitled to the benefit of grant of three advance increments. The petitioner immediately therefore, made representation on 9.4.1987. On the said representation clarification was issued by the Director of Education, H.P,. reiterating that the benefit of grant of three advance increments was only admissible to those Physical Education Teachers who were drawing less than Rs.620/- per month. It would be pertinent to mention that apparently this matter reached the State Government in another case. The Under Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of H.P. issued a clarification on 25.3.1987, wherein the Government reiterated that it had not restricted the benefit of three advance increments to those Physical Education Teachers whose salary was less than Rs.620/- per month. Despite this clarification issued by the State, the petitioners were not granted this benefit. The Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal by making out a new case on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned Tribunal the Physical Education Teachers were not granted three advance increments on joining service which benefit had been given to language teachers, drawing teachers etc. The Tribunal held that the benefit of three advance increments were allowed to the PETs only to equate them with the other teachers and therefore this benefit was only available at the time of entry into service and could not be given at every stage of pay. 4 We are unable to comprehend the reasoning given by the Tribunal. Courts and the Tribunals are expected to interpret the document in the light of the language of the document. If the language of the document is clear and unambiguous assistance cannot be taken from other factors which may have led to the issuance of the document. In the present case, the bare perusal of the document dated 5.12.1986 quoted here-in- above as well as the clarification given by the State Government on 25.3.1987 makes it amply clear that the State had granted three advance increments to all Physical Education Teacher irrespective of their pay scale. No restriction had been laid down in the letter dated 25.3.1987 that this benefit was not to be given to the Physical Education Teachers who were already drawing salary of Rs.620/- or more. Even if, there was any doubt in the matter, the said doubt has been clarified vide letter dated 25.3.1987 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the State had not raised any objection that the benefit of letter dated 5.12.1986 was not to be given to those teachers whose salary was Rs.620/- per month or more. We are also of the view that in view of the fact that letter dated 5.12.1986 had been issued in the name of the Governor and clarification was given by the State, there was no authority with the District Education Officer or the Director of Education to take a different view. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned Tribunal is not in conformity with law and 5 the same is, accordingly set aside. The Original Application filed by the applicants is allowed and it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the letter dated 5.12.1986. The amount payable to the petitioners in terms of the letter dated 5.12.1986 shall be paid to them within three months from today with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta) Judge ( Kuldip Singh) May 13, 2008 Judge (sks)