IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13605 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:10.03.2011 Santosh Puri and others ....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is at the instance of several teachers numbering 17 who made a claim to treat them as eligible for the scale of Classical and Vernacular teachers in accordance with the circular issued by the Punjab Government in circular No.5058-FR-II-II-57/5600 (Annexure P1) and further revised under the circular issued under Annexure P3. The latter circular had been issued by the Government of Punjab revising the scales of pay for teaching staff of the Education Department for various categories of teachers. The petitioners were also placing reliance on the judgment issued by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1810 of 1976 filed at the instance of one Labh Singh Civil Writ Petition No.13605 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - Garcha, teacher in a primary school, who claimed that he fell within a category B in the circular of the year, 1957 and as a person having a qualification of giani or prabhakar, he was entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 17.02.1989. The Division Bench was actually applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 1975(2) SLR 621 that the increased scales of pay were to be applied on a mass scale for all teachers, who possessed degrees and who fell within category A. The Bench noted that though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with teachers in category A, the petitioner, who was approaching the Court for relief, was in category B, but still the same principle would apply. 2. The State has filed its objection and states cryptically that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not be applicable. 3. The petitioners are making the claim for re-fixation of the scales in the light of circular issued by the Commissioner for Finance and the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Education Department in circular No.9/9/1979-FR(2)/143 (Annexure P3), providing for the application of the benefit of higher scales for certain categories of persons with respective academic qualifications that were required to be acquired. This circular contains several portions and in one, it states that if a matriculate JBT teacher improves his qualification during the course of service and acquires a degree of B.A. B.Ed. or of the language teacher/OT/giani or prabhakar, he cannot claim the scales of pay of master i.e. B.A. B.Ed. or of language teacher unless he is appointed as a master or against the post of master for which the minimum qualification Civil Writ Petition No.13605 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - is OT (giani or prabhakar.) It is this portion of the circular which is relied on in the written statement by the State to say that the petitioners do not qualify for the requisite qualification as they are not OT as such and they are not entitled for the grade of classical and vernacular teachers. This must again be read with a different situation which the circular itself contemplates that reads as follows:- “In order to ensure that these unintended and large financial implications do not continuous arising in future, the whole matter has been reconsidered by the State Govt. as a result of the reconsideration the Governor of Punjab is pleased to order that hence forth the teachers of the Education Department shall not become entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms of para 3 of the Punjab Government letter No.5058-FR-II-57/5600, dated 23rd July, 1957 automatically on their improving/acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service. The master and teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective categories to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possession/acquisition of higher qualifications prescribed for other categories of posts will not entitle them to automatically claim higher pay scales. 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 who have Civil Writ Petition No.13605 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - not yet been allowed this benefit, even though may also possess higher qualifications, it is decided that all teachers in the education department, who have improved their qualifications before the issue of this letter, may be allowed the benefit of higher scales of pay on the basis of their qualifications. This benefit shall not be allowed to those who are appointed or improve their qualifications after the issue of this letter.” 4. The contention of the petitioners is, therefore, that they are entitled to the benefit of the circular issued in terms of Annexures P3 and P6 and their case is also covered by the decision of the High Court rendered on 20.07.1976. The counsel for the petitioners also urges that the petitioners in the said case dealt with by the Division Bench possess the very same qualification as all of them have and the benefit obtained through the judgment for the particular individual was, therefore, applicable equally to all of them. 5. From the time when the writ petition was filed in the year 1989 to 2011, several teachers could have taken place and it does not known whether the scales had been revised in terms of the circular of the year 1979 and 1989 covered through P3 and P6. The appropriate relief would be to direct the authorities to consider the pleas of the petitioners for settling the scales making the revised scales by treating their cases as covered for the benefit through P3 and P6 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case vide Annexure P-2. If they had already been granted such benefit, this relief becomes otiose, but on the Civil Writ Petition No.13605 of 1989 (O&M) - 5 - other hand, if it has not been so far considered, the same be considered by the competent authority within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. All consequential benefits flowing from such an exercise will also accord to the petitioners if it has not already been provided. The writ petition is disposed of on the above directions . (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.03.2011 sanjeev