Holding

Teachers in Punjab high schools who acquire a post‑graduate degree are entitled to the higher pay scale meant for lecturers from the date of acquisition.

Summary

The appellants, teachers in Punjab high schools, obtained post‑graduate degrees and claimed entitlement to the higher pay scale designated for lecturers, relying on Government letters dated 23 July 1957 and 20 September 1979. The Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected their claim, holding that the lecturer post was not part of the high‑school cadre. On appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136, the Court examined the 1957 letter, the 1969 Education Department notification that added lecturers to the school cadre, and the 1979 circular. It held that teachers who acquire a post‑graduate qualification are entitled to the higher lecturer pay scale from the date of acquisition, and that lecturers have been part of the high‑school cadre since 1969. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant the appropriate financial benefits.

Issues considered

Whether teachers in Punjab high schools who acquire a post‑graduate qualification are entitled to the pay scale meant for lecturers.
Whether the post of lecturer forms part of the high‑school cadre under the Punjab Educational Service rules.
Interpretation of the Government letter dated 23 July 1957 (and the 20 September 1979 letter) regarding pay revisions for teachers.

Subjects

higher pay scalepost‑graduate qualificationteachershigh school cadrelecturergovernment orderpay revisionSupreme CourtArticle 136

Judgment

)
(

BAIJ NATH AND ORS. A
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

MARCH 19, 1996

[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Se1Vice Law : Entitlement to higher payscale---Held, teacliers/maste1~
in the High Schools of Punjab entitled, 011 acquisition of post-graduate degree,
to a higher pay scale, meant for lecture1~, in tenns of the govemment letter
dated 23 July 1957. c
The appellants approached the High Court seeking a direction to the
respondents to pay them the scale meant for lecturers on acquiring post-
graduate qualification. Denying their prayer, the High Court held that the
post of lecturer did not form part of the High School cadre. Hence, this
appeal. D

Allowing the appeal, this Court •

Held: 1.1. The teachers in the High Schools of Punjab who acquired
the post-graduate qualification became entitled to higher pay from· the date E
of acquisition of the qualification as contemplated in the letter of 23rd July
1957 issued by the Government of Punjab. [541-H; 542-A]

1.2. The school cadre came to consist of lecturers also from 1969 in
terms of Education Department's Notification of 9th December 1969. ·
[541-CJ F
Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, [1987] 2 SCR 923, relied on.

State of Punjab v. Kirpal Si11gh, AIR (1976) SC 2459 = [1976] 1 SCR
529 and Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab, AIR (1984) SC 1901 = [1985] l SCR
882, referred to.
G
~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4544 of
19%.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4646 of the 1992. H
539
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A M.K. Tiwari for Ms. Kusum Chaudhary for the Appellants.

Ranbir Yadav for G.K. Bansal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B HANSARIA, J. Leave granted.

2. The appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
seeking a direction on the respondents, which were the State of Punjab and
the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), to pay them according to the
scale meant for Lecturers, on their acquiring post graduate qualification, •
c in terms of Government letter No. 5058-FE-II-57/5600 dated 23.7.1957 read
with Government letter No. 8937-5 ED-11-79/2659 dated 20.9.1979. The
Division Bench of the High Court has denied the prayer. Hence this appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. The Government letter of 23.7.1957 is on the subject of revision of
D scale of pay of low paid Government servants. So far as the teachers in
Education Department are concerned, they have been dealt in Para 3 and
• it speaks about the decision of the Government to place all teachers
according to their qualifications in two broad categories : A and B. As to
Category A, whose educational qualification is mainly graduation in dif-
ferent disciplines, it has been stated that they would get a scale (Rs.
E 110-250) with higher start for M.A. or M.Sc. This Court had occasion to
lay down the purport of this letter in State of Punjab v. Ki.rpal Singh, AIR
(1976) SC 2459 = (1976] 1 SCR 529. Ray, CJ., speaking for a three-Judge
bench stated this did visualise a mass increase of scale of pay. The conten-
tion of the State counsel that the letter only meant that a teacher who
passed graduate examination would be entitled to be appointed as Master,
F and on being so appointed he would be entitled to the scale of pay, was
not accepted. It was stated that the teachers who possessed degrees
became entitled to scales of pay according to Category A.

4. The State found it difficult, having regard to the prevailing finan-
cial position, to extend the benefit of that letter to the much wider section
G
of teachers, and so, it issued a circular on 19.2.1979 stating that the teachers
of the Education Department would not automatically be entitled to place- 4
ment in the higher scales of pay by the mere circumstance of their improv-
ing or acquiring higher qualifications in the course of their service. The
teachers agitated and wanted a more generous dispensation. Thus led to
H the issuance of the letter of 20.9.1979 permiting grant of l!igher scale the
,f
<
BAIJ NA1H v. STATE [HANSARIA, J.] 541

from date of passing of the respective higher examination. It may be A
pointed out that the State of Haryana had also passed a similar order on
5.9.1979 and this Court in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR (1987) SC
1621 = [1987] 2 SCR 923, had held that the teachers acquiring B.T. or
B .Ed qualification became entitled to higher pay scale from respective
dates of acquiring the qualification.
B
5. There is no difficulty so far. The question is whether the teachers
in the High Schools, on the acquisition of post-graduate degree, are
entitled to the scale of paymeant for Lecturers. The High Court has denied
' the same on the ground that the post of Lecturer does not form part of
the High School cadre. According to the appellants this is not correct in C
so far as the State of Punjab is concerned, inasmuch as, though the Punjab
Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rule, 1955 when made,
consisted of Headmasters and Masters only, but by Education
Department's Notification of 9th. December, 1969, the post of Lecturers
had come to be added in the cadre. (It may be mentioned that this
Notification was issued to supersede Notification of 4.7.1969 on the same D
subject because in that Notification the word 11 Lecturers" was not men-
tioned through inadvertence). It is thus clear that the school cadre came
to consist of Lecturers also from 1969.

6. In the aforesaid premises the question is whether on acquisition
of post-graduate qualification the teachers in the High Schools are entitled E
to the pay scale meant for the Lecturers. To sustain this stand, reliance has
been placed on Memo No. 3101-E II 64/8950 dated 21st May, 1964 and it
has been contended that Masters of the schools in the revised pay scales
had come to be designated as Lecturers. A perusal of the memo, however,
shows that it dealt with Masters in the Government Higher Secondary F
Schools, and not in the High Schools, with whose teachers we are con-
cerned in the present appeal. So, the appellants cannot lay their claim on
the pay scale meant for Lecturers on the ground that their posts having
been designated as Lecturers they are entitled to the same.

7. But this is not all inasmuch as the letter of 23.7.1957, read with G
that of 20.9.1979, does permit higher pay scale for post graduates; and that
too from the date of acquisition of the same, as held by this Court in
Chaman Lat's case. We would, therefore, state that the teachers in the
High Schoo1' of Punjab, who acquired the post graduate qualification,
became entitled to such higher pay from the date of acquisition of the H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A qualification, as was contemplated in the letter of 23.7.1957. It may be
stated that the subject matter of Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab, AIR (1984)
SC 1901 "" [1985] 1 SCR 882, referred by Shri Yadav for the respondents,
is different and it has not stated anything contrary to what we have held.

8. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appropriate order in the light
B of what has been stated above shall be passed relating to the appellants
within six weeks from today and consequential financial benefits shall be
made available within eight weeks thereafter. In the facts and circumstan-
ces of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.

J.N.S. Appeal allowed.