Civil Writ Petition No.15058 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-16.3.2011 Parmeshwari Devi, Hindi Teacher and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kohal Dev, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Concisely, the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that the petitioners were appointed and working on the posts of Hindi/Panjabi Teachers. After the successful completion of period of probation, their services were regularized on or before 1.11.1986. 2. The petitioners claimed that in the year 1984, services of some Hindi/Panjabi Teachers were terminated by the concerned department on the ground that they were not qualified for the indicated posts. Aggrieved by the termination order, some of them had filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No.206 of 1984 titled Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Haryana, which was allowed by this Court, by virtue of order dated 2.4.1984 (Annexure P1). LPA No.687 of 1984 filed by the State of Haryana against this judgment was dismissed as well, by way of order dated 28.9.1984 (Annexure P2). Similar writ petitions filed by most of the petitioners were also stated to have been allowed in the same terms of judgment (Annexure P1). 3. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief in so far as relevant, was Civil Writ Petition No.15058 of 1991 2 that they were duly getting whatever pay scales attached to the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher before the revision of pay scale. The Haryana Government revised the pay scales of Hindi/Panjabi Teachers w.e.f. 1.5.1990, by means of letter dated 23.8.1990 (Annexure P3), but the petitioners were not granted the revised pay scales. As the representation -cum-legal notice dated 10.3.1991 (Annexure P4) was not considered/decided, therefore, in the wake of CWP No.7363 of 1991, this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation/notice of petitioners by passing a speaking order, by virtue of order dated 16.5.1991 (Annexure P5). However, the respondents rejected the representation, vide order/letter dated 16.8.1991 (Annexure P6). 4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P6) and claiming the revised pay scale admissible to the language teachers, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioners that as they fulfilled the requisite qualification for the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher and accordingly they were getting the due pay scales before the revision, but the respondents have illegally denied them the benefit of the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.5.1990. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition, claiming the revised pay scales with effect from 1.5.1990, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 6. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners and filed the written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the writ petition etc. on the ground that since the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualification of OT, so, they were not entitled to the revised pay scales. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. Civil Writ Petition No.15058 of 1991 3 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 8. As is evident from the record, that having completed the Matric, Prabhakar and J.B.T. or Matric, Giani and J.B.T., the petitioners were appointed and were working on the posts of Hindi/Panjabi Teachers. Their services were regularized on or before 1.11.1986. They were getting their salaries assigned to the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher till the revision of pay scales. The Haryana Government revised the pay scales of Hindi/Panjabi Teachers w.e.f. 1.5.1990, by virtue of letter dated 23.8.1990 (Annexure P3). The benefit of revised pay scales was denied to the petitioners on the ground that only those Hindi/Panjabi Teachers were entitled to the revised pay scales, who possessed OT qualification recognized by the Government (Annexure P6). 9. At the very outset, the learned State counsel has produced an office order No.1/117/92-2PR-(FD) dated 17.6.1992, which is taken on record as Annexure PX for ready reference, by means of which, the revised pay scales have already been granted to (petitioners) Hindi/Panjabi Teachers, who possessed the qualification of Prabhakar, Giani with J.B.T. w.e.f. 1.4.1992. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of the present case are neither intricate nor much disputed. The controversy boils down to a narrow compass in this respect. 10. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the respondents could deny the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners within the intervening period w.e.f. 1.5.1990 to 31.3.1992 or not ? 11. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, obviously, the answer is in the negative and the petitioners are entitled to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.5.1990. Civil Writ Petition No.15058 of 1991 4 12. What is not disputed here is that having completed the Matric, Prabhakar and J.B.T. or Matric, Giani and J.B.T., the petitioners were appointed and were working on the posts of Hindi/Panjabi Teachers. Their services were regularized on or before 1.11.1986. They were getting their salaries in the pay scales admissible to the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher. To my mind, subsequently, no additional qualification can be added/assigned to the post in order to deny the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners. Petitioners undisputedly possessed the qualification of Matric, Prabhakar and J.B.T (for Hindi teacher) and Matric, Giani and J.B.T. (for Panjabi Teacher). Whether the qualification of JBT is equivalent to OT or vice versa came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (I.S.Tiwana, J.), by way of order dated 2.4.1984 (Annexure P1) rendered in CWP No.206 of 1984. Having considered the entire matter as in the present case, it was inter-alia ruled as under:- “As a last resort, Mr.Bishnoi contends that the petitioners as a matter of fact are governed by the Punjab Education Service Class III(School Cadre) Rules, 1955 and as per these rules, the qualifications prescribed for a Punjabi Teacher who can legally be appointed as such are Giani with training (STC or O.T. Certificate). He, however, very fairly and frankly concedes that this Course i.e. S.T.C. was abolished with effect from the year 1958 and after that it was not available anywhere. In the face of this factual position, the respondents authorities, to my mind, were entitled to prescribe any other course and more particularly J.B.T. Course as equivalent to O.T. This was precisely so done by these authorities vide annexure P/1 not only this, when a clarification was sought by one Shakuntla Sharma a Hindi teacher in a private school, vide Annexure P/3 dated April 5, 1979, the office of the Director of Public Instruction, Haryana, informed her that “the qualification for the post of Hindi teacher should be matric (Full) Prabhakar with O.T. (Hindi) or J.B.T. (Two year course)”. This communication makes it more than clear that with the abolition of S.T. Course with effect from the year 1958, the J.B.T. Course, which admittedly was started in the year 1957, was neither taken as a substitute for the first course or at least equivalent to O.T. Course. In the light of this it is difficult to hold as is sought to be contended by Mr.Bishnoi that the petitioners, though being S.T.C. cannot be Civil Writ Petition No.15058 of 1991 5 treated either eligible for the posts, they are holding or having a qualification equivalent to O.T. Course. In the light of the above noted discussion I am of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be held to be ineligible for the posts they are holding and thus cannot be thrown out of service on that account.” 13. Meaning thereby, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification equivalent to OT for the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher and were rightly getting the pay scales admissible to the post of Hindi/Panjabi Teacher before the revision of pay scales. Subsequently, the respondents cannot legally be permitted to contend that qualification possessed by the petitioners at the time of their appointment, is not equivalent to OT in order to deny them the benefit of revised pay scales. The respondents appear to have slipped into a legal error in this regard, which they have subsequently realized and corrected by granting the revised pay scales to the Hindi/Panjabi Teachers w.e.f. 1.4.1992, by means of letter/order (Annexure PX). In this manner, it is held that petitioners are also entitled to the same revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.5.1990 to 31.3.1992. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, the impugned order (Annexure P6) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of revised pay scales to petitioners w.e.f. 1.5.1990 to 31.3.1992, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, they (petitioners) would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 % per annum of the intervening period i.e. 1.5.1990 to 31.3.1992. 16. Needless to mention here that subsequent natural consequences will follow in this respect accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 16.3.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No