LPA 11 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 11 of 2005 Date of decision 2 .8.2010 Neelam Rani and others ... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja ,Advocate for the appellant Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG Hy. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of ten appeals* filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgement dated 25.8.2004 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of a bunch of writ petitions. The petitioner-appellants are JBT teachers and they have approached this Court claiming that after acquiring different higher educational qualifications like B.A. or B.I etc. they are entitled to the grant of Master/ Mistress scale. For seeking the aforesaid benefits they placed reliance on a letter dated 23.7.1957 which has been at the centre of myriad controversies. They had claimed that JBT teachers after acquiring higher qualification should not be given less than the scale of pay which is given to Masters/ Mistress whereas they are paid lower pay scale. The prayer made before the learned Single Judge was that in the wake of the language of the aforesaid letter there exists an anomaly in their pay scale viz.-a-viz that of Masters/ Mistress LPA 11 of 2005 2 working in the Education Department, Haryana which deserves to be removed by the respondents and a direction is liable to be issued to them to take appropriate steps for removing the anomaly. The first conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge was that the post in the cadre of Masters/ Mistress are superior to the one included in the cadre of JBT teachers which is a feeder post for promotion as Master/ Mistress. To support the aforesaid conclusion the statutory rules known as Punjab Education Service Class III (Service Cadre) Rules, 1955 which included both the posts of Masters/ Mistress as well as JBT teachers have been considered. Likewise, the Haryana Civil Service (Revised scale of Pay) Rules, 1980 and 1987 enforced w.e.f. 1.4.1979 and w.e.f. 1.1.1986 respectively have also been taken into account. The Rules of 1955 were replaced by two sets of rules namely Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group”C” Service) Rules, 1998 and Haryana Primary Education (Group 'C') District Cadre Service Rules, 1994 which have also been cited by the learned Single Judge to record the aforesaid conclusion. The learned Single Judge then concluded that no anomaly is witnessed by the implementation of the policy/ instructions dated 23.71957 and observed as under:- “I have examined the aforesaid controversy, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is, however, not possible for me to accept the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957 postulate a situation wherein a person belonging to the JBT cadre, after having acquired higher qualification, can claim a pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of the Masters cadre. Despite having acquired the higher qualifications envisaged under the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957, a JBT teacher can only be granted the pay scale of Rs.80-250/-, LPA 11 of 2005 3 whereas at the relevant time the statutory Rules, namely, the 1955 Rules, placed Masters/Mistresses in the pay scale of Rs.110-250/-. The two scales are separate, distinct and unequal. By placing a JBT Teachers in the pay scale of Rs.80- 5-100/8-190/10-250, on his having acquired higher qualifications, he is not being placed in the pay scale in which a Masters/Mistress is placed. As per 1955 Rules, Masters/Mistresses are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.110-8- 190/10-250/-. It, therefore, emerges that the basis/foundation on which the argument of the petitioners rests is itself fallacious. The basis/foundation of the argument does not emerge from the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957. As noticed above, after having acquired higher qualifications, JBT teachers are not entitled to draw wages in the scale prescribed for the cadre of Masters/Mistresses. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that an anomaly is created by the implementation of the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957. “ The argument raised by the counsel for the writ petitioners- appellants on the basis of the two orders passed by the respondents dated 28.2.1993 and 19.6.1996 was also rejected . These two orders show the grant of Masters/ Mistress Grade to JBT teachers w.e.f. the date they acquired B.A./ Inter/ TDC Part I qualification. On the basis of orders passed by respondents , some direction was issued by this Court in those cases. There was no direction depicting the scale of pay which was to be granted to those petitioners. There was no conclusion recorded to the effect that those JBT teachers were entitled to the grant of pay scale with the Masters/ Mistress because those writ petitions namely CWP Nos. 999 of 1989 and 11030 of 1994 were disposed of on the basis of some earlier judgements. The view of the learned Single Judge rejecting the aforesaid argument LPA 11 of 2005 4 reads thus: “On a perusal of aforesaid orders, it emerges that the said orders constitute an act of implementation of directions issued by this Court. The files of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9999 of 1989 (Megh Raj and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 11030 of 1994 (Narender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others), were summoned and the orders passed therein perused. In neither of the aforesaid orders, there was any specific direction depicting the scale of pay which to be granted to the petitioners. This court did not record any conclusion therein to the effect that the petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Masters/Mistresses. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on the basis of earlier judgments, wherein JBT teachers of the Education Department possessing higher qualifications were held entitled to the benefit of higher scale as envisaged under the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957. The aforesaid orders dated 28.2.1993 and 19.6.1996, however, reveal that the benefits flowing thereunder, were relatable to the date of acquiring higher qualifications. As a matter of inference, therefore, it may be possible even to acknowledge (the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners), that the benefits flowing from the aforesaid orders emerge from the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957. Be that as it may, it is not possible to accept the authenticity of the aforesaid orders dated 28.2.1993 and 19.6.1996 issued by the District Primary Education Officer, Bhiwani and the District Education Officer, Rohtak, since as already concluded hereinabove, the policy instruction dated 23.7.1957 does not envisage the grant of the scale of the posts of Masters/ Mistresses even after the acquisition of the higher qualifications to JBT teachers. If JBT teachers have been placed in the pay scale of Masters/Mistresses on the basis of policy instructions dated 23.7.1957, it is obviously an action constituting an erroneous implementation of the said instructions. It is necessary to emphasis that the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957 do not envisage a situation wherein a JBT teacher can be placed in the pay scale of Masters/Mistresses even after he acquires the higher LPA 11 of 2005 5 qualifications stipulated thereunder, stipulated therein. “ Mr. Subhash Ahuja learned counsel for the writ petitioners- appellants has vehemently argued that once this Court has granted the benefit of pay scales equivalent to Masters/ Mistress Grade to those Hindi teachers who have acquired the qualification of B.A/ Inter/ TDC Part I from the date of acquiring qualifications then the writ petitioners- appellants who are similarly situated deserves to be granted the higher pay scale of 120-250 w.e.f. the date of acquiring the necessary qualification as has been done in other cases. The aforesaid argument is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be rejected. The learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the foundation of the argument does not emerge from the policy/ instructions dated 23.7.1957 and thereafter statutory rules of 1955 which have been replaced later by two set of rules promulgated in 1994 and 1998 have been made applicable. According to 1955 Rules the pay scale of Masters/ Mistress is Rs. 110-250. Even under the instructions dated 23.7.1957 issued after 1955 Rules the pay scale of JBT teachers after improving educational qualifications continued to be Rs. 80-250 whereas under 1955 Rules the scale of Master/ Mistress used to be Rs. 110-250. Grant of pay scale higher than the one admissible to an employee is permissible on the basis of higher qualification. It would not offend Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. For the aforesaid view reliance may be placed on the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. V. G.Sreeniwasan Rao (1989) 2 SCC 290. However, it cannot be claimed that they must be paid higher scale of pay of the promotional post. Likewise the rules framed in 1998 have also kept the distinction between those who hold the post of JBT teachers and that of Master/Mistress. Once the statutory rules provides LPA 11 of 2005 6 for a particular scale for JBT teachers then no room is left for us to grant any relief to them. Even the instructions issued on 23.7.1957 do not provide for any such eventuality which may result in grant of Masters/ Mistress grade to JBT teachers on acquiring the qualification of B.A/ Inter/ TDC Part 1. There is thus no room to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeals are wholly without merit and is liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussion the view by the learned Single Judge is upheld and the appeals are hereby dismissed. . A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeals. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 2 .8.2010 Judge okg * LPA 11 of 2005 Neelam Rani and others v. State of Haryana LPA 12 of 2005 Prithvi Ram and others v. State of Haryana. LPA 13 of 2005 Sumer Chandand others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 14 of 2005 Sonia and others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 15of 2005 Gamdoor Singhand others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 16of 2005 Iqbal Singh and others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 17 of 2005 Bimla Devi and others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 18of 2005 Lekh Raj and others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 19of 2005 Satyavir Singh and others v. State of Haryana.. LPA 20of 2005 Gaje Singh and others v. State of Haryana..