CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11738 of 1989 Date of decision 5.5.2009 Jasbir Kaur and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Ms. K.K..Kahlon, Advocate in CWP Nop.11738 of 1989 None for the respondents in CWP No. 13856,16809, 13532, 1280 of 1989 Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Avocate in CWP No. 837 & 5065 of 1990 for the petitioners Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11738, 13856, 16809 of 1989, 837, 13532, 1280 and 5065 of 1990 as common question of law has been raised in all these petitions. For the purposes of this judgement, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 11738 of 1989. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant to the petitioners the revised pay scale of Hindi/ Punjabi teachers in view of their already having been granted the pre-revised pay scale of Hindi/ Punjab teachers in accordance with their qualifications. The petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers. Apart from CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 2 the qualifications required for the post of JBT teacher, the petitioners also acquired the qualification of Giani/ Prabhakar. On 23.7.1957, Government issued a letter (P1) revising the pay scales of teachers w.e.f. 1.5.1957. It was stated in the letter dated 23.7.1957 that the teachers working in the Education Department will be entitled to the pay scales according to the qualifications possessed by them. Again on 19.2.1979, the State Government issued a letter directing that only those teachers working in the Education Department who have improved their qualifications before the issue of the said letter be allowed the benefit of their qualifications. In support of the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two Division Bench judgements of this Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh 1975(2)SLR 621 and Labh Singh Garcha v. State of Punjab and others 1976 SLWR 476. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned State counsel at the outset has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Kanwaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996(1) RSJ 313 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1984 SC 1901 and argued that the matter is squarely covered against the petitioners. According to the learned State counsel the petitioners are entitled to claim only that pay for the post against which they were appointed. Reliance is placed on paras 9 and 10 of the judgement which reads thus: “9. It appears that several teachers filed writ petitions in the High Court claiming revised scales of pay on the ground that they had taken graduate degrees and, therefore, were entitled to the benefit of the grade mentioned against Category 'A' in the CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 3 Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. In opposition to the writ petitions, the State Government contended that the letter did not contemplate the grant of the grade to all teachers but only to teachers appointed as Masters. The High Court held the teachers entitled to the benefit of the revised grade, whether or not they had been appointed as Masters, because, in the opinion of the High Court, the qualifying criterion was the possession of a graduate degree. The judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in Kirpal Singh Bhatia (AIR 1976 SC 2459) (supra). The State Government found it difficult, having regard to the prevailing burden on its financial resources, to extend the benefit of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 to the much wider section of teachers covered in consequence of the Court's judgment. Accordingly, the State Government issued Circular letter No. 9/9/79-FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979, paragraph 3 of which stated that in order to ensure that "these unintended and large financial implications do not continue arising in future" the whole matter had been reconsidered by the State Government and as a result the Government ordered that henceforth the teachers of the Education Department, would not automatically be entitled to placement in the higher scales of pay in terms of paragraph 3 of the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957 by the mere circumstance of their improving or acquiring higher qualifications in the course of their service. The rigour of the restriction was relaxed in some measure. Paragraph 3 said further :- CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 4 "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 not yet been allowed this benefit even though they 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 scale of pay on the basis of their qualifications." The benefit was not extended to those who were appointed or who had improved their qualifications after the issue of that Circular letter. The teachers continued to agitate for a more generous dispensation. The State Government then issued Circular letter No. 8937-5 ED. 1179/2659 dated September 20, 1979, which declared :- "The implementation of the decision contained in Finance Department circular letter No. 9/9/79 FR(2)/143 dated February 19, 1979 to grant higher pay scales to the teachers on the basis of higher qualifications was kept pending for want of clarification on certain points from the Finance Department which has now become available and is reproduced below :- 1. The higher scale may be allowed from the date of passing the respective higher examination by the concerned teacher where this has already been done. However, actual payment at enhanced rates should commence from 12-2-79 and the payment of arrears accruing from the date of passing the CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 5 examination till 13-2-1979 be restricted to the maximum for 38 months. 2. The benefit of the higher scale may be allowed from the date a particular teacher is appointed on regular basis or the date of passing the higher examination, whichever is later, but the payment of arrears, as a result of grant of such benefit should be restricted to a period of 38 months only, as already mentioned above. 3. The teachers placed in the higher scale can only be regularly adjusted when corresponding posts in the higher scale become available; in that case such teachers may continue to enjoy the higher scale as a personal measure till they are adjusted against regular posts as and when the same become available." 10. It was clarified that the contemplated benefit was confined to the categories of teachers mentioned in the Circular letter No. 5058.FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23, 1957.” The aforesaid proposition of law could not be successfully disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The letter dated 23.7.1957 used to be basis of claim for increments/ higher pay scale on the ground of higher education qualifications. Hence the pay scales were linked with education qualifications. However, the aforesaid position underwent change when letter dated 23.7.1957 was withdrawn on 19.2.1979. The instructions issued on 19.2.1979 de-linked higher education qualification from the pay scales which has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It is now well settled that the pay scale of the post on which the petitioners have been appointed are to be given irrespective of their educational qualifications. CWP No. 11738 of 1989 and six connected cases. 6 Such being the legal position there is no escape from the conclusion that the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim additional increments on acquiring higher qualifications. However, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that no recovery be effected . The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. However, the respondents are directed not to effect recovery, if any, from the petitioners. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected petitions. (M.M.Kumar) 5.5.2009 Judge okg