CWP No. 2680 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2680 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: May 26, 2011 Ishwar Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-7 dated 10.02.2006 whereby, salary of the petitioner has been decreased and recovery has been ordered. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue raised in this petition has been dealt with in extenso by this Court while dealing with RSA No. 988 of 1999 decided on 25.08.2000, Ram Chander Gupta vs. State of Haryana etc., also reported as 2000 (4) SCT 595. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly states that indeed the issue raised in this petition is covered by decision of this Court rendered in Ram Chanders Gupta's case (supra). 4. In para nos. 10 to 13 of the judgment rendered in Ram Chander Gupta's case (supra), following has been held:- CWP No. 2680 of 2006 2 “10. The post of Head Master was a post of higher responsibility than the post of Lecturer. As per letter Memo No. 1572-G.ET-(1)-KW-22/11-68 dated 23.12.1968 from the DPI, Haryana, Chandigarh addressed to all the District Education Officers in the State, the duties and responsibilities attached with the post of Head Master of Govt. High School in the scale of Rs. 300-600 are of greater importance that those attached with the post of Lecturer of the Higher Secondary School in terms of note 8 of Rule 4.4 of Civil Service Rules, Vol. I, Part I. The plaintiff was a Social Studies Master in Government High School, Barara, Ambala, when he was promoted and adjusted as Lecturer in Economics (school cadre) Men's branch in the grade of Rs. 700/1250 plus usual allowances as sanctioned by the Haryana Government. 11. From the post of Lecturer (school cadre), he was promoted to the post of Head Master, Government High School. It would bear repetition that the post of Head Master of Government High School is of greater responsibilities vis-a-vis the post of Lecturer of the Higher Secondary School. Faced with this position learned counsel for the State of Haryana submitted that Head Master's is the promotional post from the post of Master and not from the post of Lecturer. Plaintiff was promoted as Lecturer from the post of Master because of his M.A. qualifications. If that was so, he could not have been made CWP No. 2680 of 2006 3 to suffer because of his promotion to the post of Head Master. He would have drawn higher pay if he had been promoted from the post of Master to the post of Head Master. He was basically a Master but was put as Lecturer with a view to utilize his M.A. qualification. There is no evidence whether he was Lecturer substantively or he was merely holding the post of Lecturer with his lien on the post of Master. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Haryana that the plaintiff while working as Lecturer was considered as Master for the purpose of the service and he cannot take benefit both ways i.e. for getting promotion as Head Master from the Masters cadre to be treated as from cadre but for the fixation of pay to be treated as pay scale of a Lecturer on promotion to the post of Head Master. 12. In this case, the plaintiff was entitled to the pay fixation because of promotion to the post of Head Master from the post of Lecturer (School cadre) on the principle that the post of Head Master was a post of higher responsibility vis-a-vis the post of Lecturer (School cadre). In this case, the matter was sought to be raked up by the State after the plaintiff had drawn pay for quite some time. 13. For the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds and is accepted and the judgment and decree of both the courts below are set-aside the plaintiff- appellant's suit is decreed for declaration to the effect that CWP No. 2680 of 2006 4 he was entitled to be fixed at Rs.2450/- (basic pay) on 6.10.1986 on his promotion from the post of Lecturer (School cadre) HES III to the post of Head Master of Government High School, Binjalpur and further at Rs. 2525/- w.e.f. 1.4.1987 in view of the fact that the post of Head Master of Govt. High School, in Haryana is of higher responsibility than the post of Lecturer School cadre in the Haryana Education Department and for mandatory injunction directing the respondent-State of Haryana to restrain itself from reducing his basic pay already fixed i.e. Rs. 2450/- on 6.10.1986 and 2525/- w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and so on and that the pay slips issued by the Section Officer, office of District Education Officer Ambala under letter No. Audit/88/124 dated 30.5.1988 and audit/91/Nil dated 25.5.1991, are illegal inoperative, arbitrary, null and void. No costs.” 5. In view of the above, this petition is decided in terms of decision rendered in Ram Chander Gupta's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. 26.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?