State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ravi Bala & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 15401 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12503 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12503 of 1996)
Petitioner: State of Haryana & Anr.
Respondent: Ravi Bala & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 15401 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12503 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12503 of 1996)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 26, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. Ajay Siwach, Advocate for Mr.Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for the Respondents.
Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Teachers
Acquiring BT/BED qualification after 8th March 1990 – Held circu-lar of Haryana Govt. dated 9.3.1990 is prospective in operation and teachers acquiring higher qualification on or after 9.3.90 are not entitled to higher scales of pay – Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana followed – Appeal allowed.
Teachers
Acquiring BT/BED qualification after 8th March 1990 – Held circu-lar of Haryana Govt. dated 9.3.1990 is prospective in operation and teachers acquiring higher qualification on or after 9.3.90 are not entitled to higher scales of pay – Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana followed – Appeal allowed.
Cases Reffered:
1.Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana = (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 697) (Para 4)
2. Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana ((1987) 3 SCC 213) (Para 5)
2. Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana ((1987) 3 SCC 213) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The respondents had filed writ petition claiming higher scale of pay on their acquiring B.T./E.Ed. qualification. Admittedly, they were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers. They improved their qualifications and claimed parity on the basis of the letter issued by the then Punjab Government on July 23, 1957 in Circular No.5056-FR-11/57. The High Court issued the directions. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. The controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 697) wherein this Court had held while dealing with the revision of the pay-scale of Government employees, i.e., teaching personnel of the Education Department, the Government of Haryana had in their policy instructions dated March 9, 1990 expressed in unequivocal terms that the intention to retract from the earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be enti-tled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. Therefore, as they did not acquire the qualification before 9.3.1990, they are not entitled to the benefit of the higher grade of pay automatically.
5. It is contended by Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents, that this controversy was considered by this Court in Chaman lal v. State of Haryana ((1987) 3 SCC 213) and the Government cannot by the memo dated March 9, 1990 set at naught the judgment of this Court. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the Government have specifically explained in their letter that though the composite Punjab State had issued the above circular which was accepted by the Kothari Commission, the Government of Haryana after its letter dated January 5, 1968 had not followed that Punjab Order. However, it was construed that the Government have adopted the above letter. In that light, they had reconsidered the entire issue and stated in paragraph 6 of the letter thus:
“6. In order to remove the confusion being created by misconstru-ing the intention of the Govt., the whole matter has been recon-sidered by the State Govt. As a result of the reconsideration, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to clarify that the teachers of the Education Department are not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab Govt. letter No.5056-F-11-57/6600 dated 23rd July, 1957 or any subse-quent letters/notifications issued by the Haryana Govt. referred to in the preceding paras, which letters already become inopera-tive on their improving/acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service automatically. The masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possessing/acquiring of higher qualifi-cations will not entitle them automatically to claim higher pay scales.”
6. This letter was considered by this Court in Wazir Singh’s case and it was held that those who acquired the qualifications are not automatically entitled to the fitment in the higher pay scales. In the judgment in Wazir Singh’s case itself it was mentioned in para 10 that the counsel appearing for the State had conceded that all those who had acquired B.T. and/or B.Ed. before March 9, 1990 would be entitled to get higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab State’s letter dated July 23, 1957. Therefore, the circular of the Government dated March 9, 1990 would be prospective in operation; it would be applicable to those candidates who acquired the qualifications on and after the said date and they are not entitled to higher scale of pay.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The respondents had filed writ petition claiming higher scale of pay on their acquiring B.T./E.Ed. qualification. Admittedly, they were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers. They improved their qualifications and claimed parity on the basis of the letter issued by the then Punjab Government on July 23, 1957 in Circular No.5056-FR-11/57. The High Court issued the directions. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. The controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 697) wherein this Court had held while dealing with the revision of the pay-scale of Government employees, i.e., teaching personnel of the Education Department, the Government of Haryana had in their policy instructions dated March 9, 1990 expressed in unequivocal terms that the intention to retract from the earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be enti-tled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. Therefore, as they did not acquire the qualification before 9.3.1990, they are not entitled to the benefit of the higher grade of pay automatically.
5. It is contended by Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents, that this controversy was considered by this Court in Chaman lal v. State of Haryana ((1987) 3 SCC 213) and the Government cannot by the memo dated March 9, 1990 set at naught the judgment of this Court. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the Government have specifically explained in their letter that though the composite Punjab State had issued the above circular which was accepted by the Kothari Commission, the Government of Haryana after its letter dated January 5, 1968 had not followed that Punjab Order. However, it was construed that the Government have adopted the above letter. In that light, they had reconsidered the entire issue and stated in paragraph 6 of the letter thus:
“6. In order to remove the confusion being created by misconstru-ing the intention of the Govt., the whole matter has been recon-sidered by the State Govt. As a result of the reconsideration, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to clarify that the teachers of the Education Department are not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab Govt. letter No.5056-F-11-57/6600 dated 23rd July, 1957 or any subse-quent letters/notifications issued by the Haryana Govt. referred to in the preceding paras, which letters already become inopera-tive on their improving/acquiring higher qualifications during the course of their service automatically. The masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possessing/acquiring of higher qualifi-cations will not entitle them automatically to claim higher pay scales.”
6. This letter was considered by this Court in Wazir Singh’s case and it was held that those who acquired the qualifications are not automatically entitled to the fitment in the higher pay scales. In the judgment in Wazir Singh’s case itself it was mentioned in para 10 that the counsel appearing for the State had conceded that all those who had acquired B.T. and/or B.Ed. before March 9, 1990 would be entitled to get higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab State’s letter dated July 23, 1957. Therefore, the circular of the Government dated March 9, 1990 would be prospective in operation; it would be applicable to those candidates who acquired the qualifications on and after the said date and they are not entitled to higher scale of pay.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
