IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.396 of 2003 in CWP No.339/1987 Date of Decision: 11.9.2008. Narain Dass Singhal ..........Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others. ..........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal,Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Nidhi Garg,A.A.G.Punjab for the respondents. Jaswant Singh,J. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement dated 26.2.2003 passed by the learned single Judge, vide which the claim of the appellant-petitioner for the grant of advance increments from the date of his acquiring the post graduate qualification in Arts has been declined. Facts in brief are that the appellant-petitioner joined service in the Education Department in the Government of Punjab as Master on 12.1.1955. He was promoted as Headmaster w.e.f. 22.10.1970 and retired as such on 30.11.1985. In the course of his working as Headmaster, he acquired the degree of Master of Arts on 31.10.1978. He filed CWP No.339 of 1987, claiming that he was entitled to get advance increments and higher start of pay in terms of the policy decisions dated 23.7.1957, 1.9.1960, 19.2.1979 and 20.9.1979 at Annexures P/1 to P/4 respectively, taken by the Government to grant monetary benefits to the teachers acquiring higher qualifications. The stand of the respondents was that the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to the advance increments because such benefits were/are admissible only to Masters/JBT Teachers who acquire higher qualification and not to those like the appellant-petitioner, who obtained the post graduate qualification after his promotion as Headmaster. The learned single Judge after examining the policy decisions at Annexures P/1 to P/4 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that he was not entitled to the relief claimed. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that Headmaster is also to be read as a part of the category of teachers specified in policy decision dated 23.7.1957 (Annexure P/1) and thereafter would be entitled to the grant of advance increments in terms of the policy decision dated 1.9.1960 (Annexure P/2). We are not impressed by the argument raised by the learned counsel. The learned single Judge after dealing with the policy decision at Annexures P/1 to P/4 held as under:- “From what has been noted above, it is clear that the policy decisions contained in Annexures P1 to P4 are confined to the grant of higher pay etc. to JBT teachers, Masters and holders of equivalent posts and they do not envisage grant of advance increments or higher start of pay to the Head Masters on their acquiring higher qualifications. Any doubt/ambiguity in this regard must be treated as cleared by the letter of sanction issued on 1.9.1980 under which only Masters working in Punjab Education Department were made eligible for advance increments from the date of acquiring higher qualifications”. We further find that the learned single Judge relying upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Kanwaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) RSJ 313, wherein the scope of policy decisions dated 23.7.1957 (Annexure P/1) and 19.2.1979 (Annexure P/3) was examined in extenso, has held that with effect from 19.2.1979 the Government has done away with the policy of linking pay scales with acquisition of higher qualifications. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 11.9.2008. (Satish Kumar Mittal) joshi Judge