LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.3.2008. State of Haryana etc. ............. Appellants through Mr. B.S.Rana,Addl. Advocate General,Haryana Versus Smt. Nirmala Mittal ..............Respondents . CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** Vijender Jain,Chief Justice CM No. 172/2008. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and six days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.38/2008. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 3.10.2007. The short question involved in the present appeal is regarding denial of benefit of three advance increments for possessing and acquiring Ph.D. degree during government service as Lecturer in the Education Department Haryana vis-a-vis grant of the same to candidates who possess the said qualification before their joining government service, on the LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) 2 strength of interpretation of relevant clauses in the instructions dated 22.7.1988 (Annexure P-3), as adopted vide instructions dated 8.3.1989 (Annexure P-4) by Government of Haryana. The facts in brief are that the respondent petitioner possessing post graduate qualification in Hindi and Sanskrit was appointed as a regular Lecturer in Haryana State College cadre in the year 1971. She was sent on deputation to Government College, Sector 11, Chandigarh in the year 1973. She obtained Ph.D degree in the year 1990. The pay scales of teachers in the Colleges and Universities in the State of Haryana were revised by the State government vide its notification dated 8.3.1989 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of recommendations dated 22.7.1988 (Annexure P-3) made by the University Grants Commission (for short UGC), which was duly adopted by the State of Haryana. The respondent-petitioner has claimed that on account of acquiring Ph.D. qualification in the year 1990 she was entitled to the award of three advance increments on the basis of relevant provisions/ clauses of Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4,which for ready reference are reproduced as under:- “In order to encourage research, in continuation of Post Graduate Studies, candidates who, at the time of their regular appointment as Lecturers possess Ph.D or M.Phil degree will be sanctioned three and one advance increments respectively in the scale of Rs.2200/4000 alongwith the benefit of corresponding years of service for the purpose of promotion. The individual shall have the benefit of weightage only once. The existing lecturers without research degrees, and those similarly situated recruited in future will be eligible for a similar benefit of service for the purpose of promotion as and when they acquire research degree, but will not be a eligible for advance increments. Existing lecturers with research degree will also be eligible for a similar benefit.” LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) 3 The petitioner at the time of her regular appointment as Lecturer did not possess Ph.D or M.Phil degree, therefore, she was not granted the advance increments being not covered under the relevant clause of the instructions. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CWP No. 299 of 1995, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.1996. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3430 of 1997 against the order dated 13.9.1996 was filed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 29.8.1997 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remanded the case back for consideration regarding validity of relevant clause of the circulars Annexures P-3 and P-4. The learned single Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 3.10.2007 has allowed the civil writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner. Circular letters Annexures P-3 and P-4 whereby the Lecturers have been held to be dis-entitled to the grant of three or one advance increments on improving their qualifications by acquiring Ph.D or M.Phil degrees during service has been declared illegal and thus struck down to that extent. It was held that the respondent- petitioner is entitled to grant of three increments although she had acquired her Ph.D qualification being in service from the date of her acquiring Ph.D degree alongwith arrears. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel is that the rationale behind the grant of aforesaid benefit of advance increments to the persons who acquired Ph.D or M.Phil degrees before their regular appointment was to encourage research in continuation of Post graduate studies and the same has not been considered by the learned single Judge. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) 4 We are afraid, we cannot accept this contention and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned single Judge while considering the validity of the instructions has discussed as under:- “The object to acquire Ph.D/M.Phil qualification under faculty improvement programme is to provide opportunities to the teachers working in the colleges to keep themselves afresh with the development in the field of study and research and to enhance their professional competency as teachers. Therefore, to acquire Ph.D./M.Phil degree is related to maintain the standard of High Education. The respondent is over-emphasizing that the petitioner acquired Ph.D degree on Govt. expenses and overlooked that it was under a scheme to retain the talent in the college teacher. The stand of the State is vague. It is also submitted that number of teachers who acquired Ph.D /M.Phil before entering service do so by enjoying the benefit of various fellowships and stipendiary programmes. Moreover, no condition was imposed when the petitioner was sent for Ph.D course that on completion of the degree no financial benefits shall be granted. The State has tried to create distinction, which has no logic or justification. There is no reason why the petitioner and similarly situated teachers should be denied the benefit of three advance increments.” We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge. The research undertaken by both the class of lecturers would be of similar required quality with the ultimate aim of providing better education to the students and thus serving public interest. Admittedly, lecturers who acquired higher qualification of Ph.D/M.Phil during service and those who possessed that before their recruitment form one class of LPA NO.38/2008(O&M) 5 teachers. To create a sub-classification between the two based on the rationale of promoting research after postgraduation smacks of arbitrariness and is discriminatory. The sub-classification based on the intelligible differentia has no nexus with the object to achieve i.e. excellence of education. The undertaking of the research for both categories of teachers is ultimately aimed at helping them become more informed and better teachers. There is another dimension. Senior teachers cannot be denied the benefit of aforesaid advance increments merely because they did not possess Ph.D/M.Phil degree before their recruitment, while granting the benefit of said increments to otherwise juniors as it will result in a senior getting lesser pay than his junior though being a part of the same class of teachers. This would be most unreasonable and not serving public interest. We find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the LPA is dismissed. C.M.No.173 of 2008 seeking staying the operation of the impugned judgment dated 3.10.2007 also stands dismissed. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE 17.3.2008 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE