CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10815 of 1998. Date of Decision: 01st May, 2008. Pritam Singh & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. P.K.Gokalney, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10815 and 11162 of 1998 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from CWP No. 10815 of 1998. [2]. The petitioners are aggrieved at the letters dated 4th July, 1997 and 13th August, 1997 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) issued by the District Education Officer (S), Ferozepur whereby their pay has been ordered to be re-fixed. [3]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [4]. The petitioners joined the Education Department, Punjab as Masters/Mistresses prior to 1st January, 1978. They are stated to be possessing higher academic qualifications, i.e., more than what is CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-2-:: prescribed for their respective posts. While the petitioners were directly recruited, appointment to their cadre are also made by way of promotion from amongst JBT teachers etc. [5]. The State of Punjab revised the pay scales of its employees w.e.f. 1st January, 1978 in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1979. It appears that the Masters/Mistresses were granted revised pay scale of Rs.620/1200 w.e.f. the aforesaid date. However, vide subsequent executive instructions dated 18th February, 1983, the Punjab Government allowed and increased the starting salary, i.e., the basic pay of Masters/Mistresses to Rs.660/- per month retrospectively w.e.f. 1st January, 1978. This higher starting salary was made available to all the Masters/Mistresses having basic qualifications of B.A./B.Ed. [6]. It further appears that in terms of the earlier government instructions including the one issued vide No. 1[32]-85-EID4-11/4 dated 1st January, 1978. those Masters/Mistresses who were possessing higher qualifications of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. etc. were made entitled to claim 2/3 advance increments, as the case may be. The benefit of the afore-stated additional increments was, however, restricted to those Masters/Mistresses only who came to be appointed on or before the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 1st January, 1978. This led to the flood of cases in this Court by those Masters/Mistresses who were possessing higher qualifications but came to be appointed prior to 1st January, 1978. Those bunch of writ petitions were allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1st March, 1995 (Ravel Singh & Anr. V State of Punjab, CWP CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-3-:: No.17005 of 1989) whereby it was directed that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners had joined service with Post Graduate qualification before 1st January, 1978 or had acquired the Post Graduate qualification after the said date, their pay shall be stepped up equivalent to the one being drawn by other Masters/Mistresses who are immediate junior to them. [7]. The petitioners were also amongst the writ petitioners whose cases were decided by this Court vide judgment referred to above, operative part of which reads as follows:- “For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions, i.e, CWP Nos. 12141 of 1989, 4878, 6118, 6721, 9941, 9945, 13858, 13926, 16499, 17064, 6701 of 1989 and 3568, 4730, 8403, 3274, 11156 and 16623 of 1990 are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents that the pay of the petitioners be stepped up equal to the one being drawn by other Masters and Mistresses immediate junior to the petitioners irrespective of the fact that petitioners joined service with Post-graduate qualifications before 1.1.1978, or acquired Post Graduate qualifications before 1.1.1978, or acquired Post Graduate qualifications before that date. Petitioners shall be entitled to arrears of pay for a period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. Respondents shall do the needful within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs”. [8]. In compliance to the aforementioned judgment, the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs), namely, Principals of the Schools undertook the exercise of stepping up of the senior persons wherever they were posted. As a consequence thereto, the pay of CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-4-:: the petitioners was also stepped up and re-fixed as they too claimed that their juniors had been getting higher pay only because of additional increments granted for the higher qualifications. [9]. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that before re-fixation of their pay, each petitioner had supplied the details/particulars of their respective junior(s) and upon consideration thereof only that the concerned DDO had re-fixed their pay/ emoluments. [10]. The aforementioned benefit, however, proved to be short- lived as hardly after one and half years, the third respondent, namely, District Education Officer issued the impugned circulars dated 4th July, 1997 and 13th August, 1997 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) directing the DDOs, namely, Principals of the Schools to re-fix the petitioners' pay which, according to him, was erroneously revised in terms of the judgment of this Court in Ravel Singh's case (supra). [11]. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court again. [12]. The respondents have filed their written statement contesting the petitioners' claim. It has been averred that while re- fixing the pay of the petitioners as earlier directed by this Court in Ravel Singh's case (supra), the concerned DDO has not kept in view the fact that the pay of a senior Master was to be stepped up equivalent to the one being drawn by his junior and that pay of some of the senior Masters has been stepped up by comparing with those juniors who were getting more pay by virtue of their length of service. It has been further averred that guidelines have now been issued by CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-5-:: the respondent No. 3 to all the DDOs which are to be followed while re-fixing the petitioners' pay as directed by this Court in Ravel Singh's case (supra). [13]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and other material on record. [14]. There is indeed no dispute that the judgment dated 1st March, 1995 in Ravel Singh's case is inter-se parties and has attained finality. There can also be no quarrel that in terms thereof, all those Masters/Mistresses who joined service with Post Graduate qualification before 1st January, 1978 are also entitled to claim stepping up of their pay equivalent to the one being drawn by their juniors. The respondents, therefore, are obligated to undertake the said exercise and whosoever out of the petitioners is found to be entitled for such stepping up of his pay, has to be granted the said benefit. At the same time, the mis-interpretation or mis-application of the judgment in Ravel Singh's case does not confer any legal right upon the petitioners to claim any illegitimate monetary benefit, even if it is found on facts that none of their juniors is drawing higher pay than them due to grant of additional increments for higher qualifications. In other words, the factual exercise in terms of Ravel Singh's case is required to be undertaken in respect of each of the petitioners and only those whose juniors are found to be drawing higher pay due to grant of increments to them on the basis of higher qualification, are entitled to be stepped up. [15]. While the petitioners have come up with the stand that they have already given the instances of their juniors who are CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-6-:: drawing higher pay on account of the benefit of increments granted to them on the basis of higher qualifications, it is quite possible that appears that upon reconsideration, all those instances were not found to be factually correct. [16]. It may, however, be noticed that the petitioners were granted the benefit of stepping up and in pursuance thereof they have been allowed to draw higher pay for a period of one year or so. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners misrepresented the facts or misguided the authorities to re-fix their pay. Consequently, following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Sahib Ram v State of Haryana,1994(5) SLR, 753 and (ii) Babu Lal Jain v State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2007) 6 SCCC, 180, it is held that no recovery can be affected from the petitioners in respect of the higher emoluments which have already been paid to them. Consequently, the circulars (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are hereby quashed to that extent. [17]. As regard to the petitioners' entitlement of stepping up of their pay in terms of the judgment in Ravel Singh's case, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (i) in addition to the instances, if any, already supplied by the petitioners, they may submit fresh representations along with particulars of their those juniors who got additional increments on the basis of higher qualifications, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them; CWP NO. 10815 OF 1998. ::-7-:: (ii) the respondents, besides considering the claim of the petitioners on the basis of earlier representations/ instances, shall also consider the fresh representations, if any, received from the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders regarding stepping up of their pay, if so required; (iii) the needful shall be done within six months from the date of filing of fresh representations, if any, by the petitioners. [18]. Disposed of. No costs. May 01, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE