IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 579 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.4.2010. Jai Bhagwan --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner joined as J.B.T Teacher on ad hoc basis on 3.9.1970 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1979. The petitioner acquired the higher qualification of B.A.-I on 23.6.1973 during service. Vide order dated 9.3.1990 issued by the State of Haryana higher pay scale was granted on acquisition of the higher qualification by the teachers in the State of Haryana. The petitioner having acquired higher qualification during ad hoc service was extended the benefit of J.S.T grade w.e.f. 12.12.1973 in terms of Memo Dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure P-4). Under this memo such of the employees who acquired higher qualification prior to 1990 were granted such benefit, though, arrears were to be restricted to 38 months. The respondents passed a specific order dated 22.1.2004 granting the benefit of the higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.1973 and his pay was re-fixed vide another order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P-6). It appears that on the basis of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Sumitra Devi passed in Civil Appeal No. 4861 of 1998 the State Govt. decided to withdraw the J.S.T grade CWP. No. 579 of 2009 -2- granted to the J.B.T Teachers. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice for re-fixation of pay and recovery on account of withdrawal of J.S.T grade. Show cause notice was followed by the impugned order dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure P-9) whereby the salary of the petitioner has been re- fixed and amount ordered to be recovered from him in 20 installments. The J.S.T grade has been withdrawn from the petitioner only on the ground that he acquired the higher qualification during the ad hoc service. Similar controversy has been considered by this Court in CWP No. 997 of 2009 decided on 9.2.2010, wherein following observations have been made:- “ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitra Devi (supra). The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a teacher who acquired higher qualification during service alone is entitled to the benefit does not make any distinction between the ad hoc service or regular service. No govt. policy has been placed on record which indicates that the benefit is permissible only if a teacher acquired higher qualification after regular appointment. The Govt. policy provides for higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification during service. There is continuity in the service of the petitioner right from 10.3.1971 whereas he was regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1979. Thus the benefit of the higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualification while in service cannot be denied to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice/order (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed. If any amount has been recovered from the emoluments/retiral benefits of the petitioner, the same shall be refunded back to him within a period of three months.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.4.2008 (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed and it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner on that basis. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.4.2010. lucky