GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

                        [2015] 9 S.C.R. 762


A             GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.
                            v.
               STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
               (CivilAppeal Nos.6691-6692 of2015)
B                     SEPTEMBER 01, 2015
             [M.Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
       Service Law: School cadre teachers- Transferred to the
  college - Claim by teachers for parity of scale with the
c teachers of college - Held: Appellants teaching for last 25
  years in the respondent-Institutions- In the special facts and
  circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to get
  the pay scale at par with the teachers of the respondent
  college inasmuch as they are discharging the same duties
D
  and also possessing the requisite qualification.

        Allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1. Appellant No.1 possessed requisite
E qualifications i.e. Shastri, Acharya and M.A. (Sanskrit) and
  was transferred to the respondent Institute. He served
  in the respondent Institute for the last 26 years. Similarly,
  appellant No.2 possessed qualification of M.A., Punjabi,
  Gyani (Hons in Punjabi). He was transferred from
F Government Middle School to the respondent Institute
  in August, 1979. The appellants have been teaching to
  the students in the college. From perusal of the letter
  issued by the Punjab University, Chandigarh dated
  27.6.1965 addressed to the Principal of all the Institutions
G affiliated with the University inviting attention to the office
  circular dated 27.11.1963, it is clear that the decision was
  taken at the meeting of the syndicate laying down the             .
  minimum qualifications for both the teaching staffs of
H                               762
      GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB 763


    the affiliated Institutions. It was further decided by the    A
    University that those teachers who are confirmed hands
    and over 40 years of age will be approved on the basis
    of their long teaching experience etc. even if they do not
    exactly fulfill the qualification. The appellants have been
    working for the last 25 years in the respondent               8
    Institutions and teaching the students of the college. The
    reason given by the High Court is that for the purpose
    of claiming pay-scale at par with the college teachers,
    the minimum requirement is that one has to clear the
~

    State Level Eligibility Test. That condition will not apply   c
    so far the appellants are concerned as because on the
    date when they were appointed and transferred to the
    college there was no requirement for having the
    qualification of State Level Eligibility Test. The
                                                                  D
    qualification of the candidate is considered at the time
    of appointment and not after rendering 25 years of
    service in the college. In the special facts and
    circumstances of the present case, the appellants are
    entitled to get the pay-scale at par with the teachers of     E
    the respondent college inasmuch as they have been
    discharging the same duties and also possessing the
    required qualification. However, this order will not create
    a precedent. [Paras 15 to 19] [770-B-H; 771-A-C, F-G]
                                                                  F
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
    6691-6692 of 2015.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2013 of the .
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA Nos.
    76 and 78 of 2012.                                         G

                              WITH

        C. A. No. 6693-94 of2015.
                                                                  H
        A. Sharan, Natasha Vinayak, Tushar Bakshi, Monika
     •

764        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A Arora, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Gaurav Upadhyay, Saurabh
  Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi (for Kuldip Singh), Praveen
  Chaturvedi for the appearing parties.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
         M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1.Leave granted.
       2. These appeals by special leave are directed against
  the Judgment and order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the High
  Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPANos.76 and 78of2012,
C whereby Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
  Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the appellants-teachers
  upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge who
  disposed of their writ petitions with certain directions.
 D       3. The facts of the case in brief are that various writ
   petitions at the instance of teachers of two of the Sanskrit
   Institutes at Patiala and Nabha were filed, which were clubbed
   and segregated by the learned Single Judge under two heads.
   First, the cases in the nature of public interest that were filed
 E by the affected teachers themselves that the Sanskrit
   Mahavidyalya, Patiala and Sanskrit Institute at Nabha shall not
   be brought down to the level of school since they conduct
   courses at par with colleges beyond the level of matriculation
 F and that the institutes shall be run with teachers of college cadre.
   Secondly, the claims at the instance of the teachers that they
   are entitled to the scales of pay commensurate with the
   Lecturers and Professors of colleges since the syllabi for the
   courses are approved by the Punjabi University at Patiala and
 G the qualifications for teachers are as prescribed by the
   University.
        4. The common ground for all the teachers, who have filed
   various writ petitions, is that in a suit filed by oneAcharya Lekh
 H Ram Dixit against State of Punjab, when he was sought to be
   transferred from the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Patiala to a
  GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB 765
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

school, he claimed relief of restraint order on the ground that A
the institute was equivalent to a college and any such transfer
would not be permissible. The Court accepted the contention
and decreed the suit and also held that he would be entitled to
the scale of pay of a Lecturer in colleges. This was the central
plank on which several teachers working in these two institutes B
claimed the same relief.

      5. The factual background of the matter, as pleaded before
the learned Single Judge, is that the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya
Patiala is reported to have come into existence in the Patiala          C
State for imparting education in the classical language of
Sanskrit in the year 1860. Later English and Mathematics
languages had been introduced in the year 1862 and in 1870,
the Maharaja of Patiala created an Education Department and
the institute was affiliated to the Calcutta University in the year     D
1874. The Viceroy of India Lord North Brooke laid the
foundation stone of Mahindra College Patiala and Lord Rippon
inaugurated the college building in the year 1884. The courses
offered at the Mahavidyalaya were Shastri, Vishara, Prajana
all in Sanskrit and Gyani,Vidwan and Budhiman all in Punjabi.           E
The classes in Sanskrit and Punjabi were separated from the
college and moved to the separate institutions in the name of
Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Gurmukhi Vidyalaya, Patiala in 1912.
These two Vidyalayas were amalgamated in 1963 and a new                 F
institution namely the Government Institute of Classical and
Modern Indian Language(MIL), Patiala was established. The
Punjabi University at Patiala laid down the qualification of
teaching staff of the affiliated institution for Oriental Titled (OT)
and MIL examination. For the Sanskrit teaching staff, the               G
qualification was BA+Shastri+Prabhakarforteaching Prajana
and Visharad and for still higher course of Shastri, MA
Sanskrit+Shastri+Acharya were needed.

   6. It has been pleaded that the Institution at Patiala had H
been originally affiliated to Punjab University, Chandigarh but
766         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A     w.e.f. 13.06.1969, it was affiliated to the Punjabi University,
      Patiala. The University's letter to the institute clearly showed
      that it was treated as a college and came within the purview of
      the University. It was again the University that laid down
      qualification, pay scale and qualification of the teaching staff
B     for the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala. The Senate of the University
      had made the recommendation with reference to qualifications
      and pay scales on 25.12.1970 and the State of Punjab itself
      approved the Mahavidyalaya as a college on 22.6.1972.

C       7. The stand-off between the teaching staff and the State
   really started only when the State of Punjab tried to bring the
   institute to the level of school when aforesaid Acharya Lekh
   Ram filed a civil suit stating that he was a teacher in a college
   cadre and could not be transferred to school. The suit had been
 D decreed by the Special Judge, Patiala and the order of transfer
   to a school was declared as illegal. The case was contested
   by the State upto this Court and at all levels, the trial Court
   decree was affirmed. The special leave petitions preferred
   against High Court decision were dismissed at the admission
 E stage. The plaintiff in that suit had also applied for release of
   arrears on the basis that he was entitled to scales of Lecturer
   in a college and the DPI (Colleges) had also released the
   arrears on 25.09.1989.

 F       8. The appellants' further case is that the institutes were
   always treated as college. Considering the pleadings and
   contentions of the parties and observing that the State itself
   has not made any serious dispute in this regard, the learned
   Single Judge directed that the Institute of Oriental Languages
 G shall be treated as equivalent to college and it has come under
   the control of the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges). It is
   affiliated to the Punjabi University at Patiala. If it is recognized
   as college, there is no scope for the Director of Public
 H Instructions (Schools) to have any authority to make transfers
   from the school cadre to this institute.
  GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     767
                [M. Y EQBAL, J.]

    9. With regard to parity of scales, learned Single Judge,        A
while disposing of the writ petitions, held that

     "All those persons, who have been brought from school
     cadre and repatriated or liable to repatriation shall have
     no claim to parity in scales. On the other hand, the            B
     persons, who have been appointed at the institutes
     themselves directly and who possess qualifications as
     lecturers as prescribed by the University or who have
     been brought from college cadre from any other college
     shall alone be entitled to the scales of pay equivalent to      C
     that of Lecturers. The scales shall be worked out from
     the date of their engagement at the institutes and the
     amounts shall be calculated and be paid to them within
     8 week~ from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If
     amongst the teachers in the institutes, there are teachers      D
     who are brought from the school cadre but who have
     qualified to be Lecturers in a college, with qualification
     so acquired, the scales could be considered for revision
     and for retention in the institute itself and placed in the
     college cadre. Their scales will be revised only from the       E
     day when orders are passed for the retention in the
     institutes and when a decision is taken to treat them as
     coming within the college cadre. This exercise shall be
     completed by the Director of Public Instructions Colleges       F
     and the appropriate sanctions shall be issued by the
     Government for appropriate revision of their scales
     commensurate with their qualifications and the status as
     persons belonging to the college cadre, within 8 weeks
     from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."            G

     10. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge,
the appellants-writ petitioners of the three of the aforesaid writ
petitions preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Division
Ben~h of High Court, which proceeded on the following two            H
issues:
768        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 9 S.C.R.


A         "i) Whether these school cadre teachers have a right to
          be retained in two institutes or they can be transferred to
          school cadre?

          ii) Whether the appellants admittedly belong to school
 B        cadre are entitled to the pay scales of Lecturers of the
          colleges on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' on
          the ground that they have been teaching in the colleges?"

         11. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that
c  the appellants were working in the Institute at Nabha claimed
   parity of salary with teachers working in Colleges and they
   would make pointed reference to the fact that through
   instructions dated 04.03.1975, Secretary to Government,
   Punjab Education Department to the Director of Public
 D Instructions; Punjab had sanctioned the en-cadrement of the
   posts of Pradhanacharya and Acharya of Sanskrit
   Mahavidyalaya, Nabha in the college cadre in the pay scale of
   ' Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-600 respectively. The State of
   f='.unjab in its counter contended that the appellants had never
 E been appointed from the col!ege cadre but they belonged to
   the school cadre. The appellants, however, disputed this
   position by making reference to the letter of Assistant Secretary,
   Education Departme,nt to the Deputy Director, College,
   Education stating that the appellants were working in the
 F college wing of the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya ever since it was
   upgraded as college in the year 1972. ·

        12. Be that as it may, after having heard learned counsel
    appearing for the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court
G . upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that:

          " ... merely because the appellants were made to teach
          in a college, would not mean that they are to be equated
          with the college lecturers and the principle of 'equal pay
 H        for equal work' would apply. These appellants were
              .     .
  GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   769
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     appointed in a school cadre as per the qualifications A
     which are prescribed for school teachers. The contention
     of the respondents that the essential qualification of
     passing NET Exam is not possessed by the appellants,
     could not be disputed by the appellants. That apart merely
     because the appellants have higher qualification would B
     not mean that they automatically become entitled to the
     pay scales of higher post than the post to which they are
     appointed.

     Thus, merely b~cause the institute where the appellants C
     are teaching is affiliated with the University land thus gets
     the status of a college would not mean that the appellants
     shall also be

     entitled to the pay scales of lecturers. Further, the         o
     contention of the appellants that they fulfill all the
     qualifications laid down for appointment to the post of
     Lecturers is not correct. Even otherwise, that cannot be
     a ground for extending the benefit of 'equal pay for equal
     work', as the appellants were appointed in school cadre       E
     on the basis of the qualifications me;~mt for school cadres
     and the procedure for appointment of school cadres is
     totally different from the lecturers. For all other reasons
     mentioned above we uphold the judgment of the learned
     Single Judge."                                                F

      13. With regard to the issue whether these school cadre
teachers have right to be retained, the Division Bench held
that when it is found that the appellants are school cadre
teachers, they would have not any right to remain in two           G
institutes which have now conferred the status of colleges. They
can, therefore, always be transferred to school .cadres.

    14. Hence, the present appeals by special leave by the
aggrieved teachers.                                                H
770        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2015] 9 S.C.R.


A        15. We have heard Mr.A Sharan, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the appellants, Ms. Monika Arora, learned
    counsel appearing for the appellant in one set of appeals and
    Mr. Suresh Ajay Gupta and Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned
    counsel appearing for the State and respondents respectively.
B We have also perused the impugnedjudgment passed by the
    High Court. The admitted facts are that the appellant No.1
    Gurdas Singh possessed requisite qualifications i.e. Shastri,
    Acharya and M.A. (Sanskrit) and was transferred from NJSA
    College, Kapurthala on 18th August, 1989. He has been serving
C in the respondent Institute for the last 26 years. Similarly,
    appellant No.2 Sitar Mohammad possesses qualification of
    M.A., Punjabi, Gyani {Hons in Punjabi). He was transferred
    from Government Middle School, 9 Kala Patiala to the
  • respondent Institute in August, 1979. He worked for about 27
0
    years 5 months and retired in December, 2007. Similarly,
    Subhash Chander, appellant having requisite qualifications of
    Prabhakar Shastri, M.A. (Sanskrit), was transferred from
    Government Senior Secondary School, Patiala in 1990 and
E have been working there forthe last 25 years. It is also not in
    dispute that the appellants have been teaching to the students
    in the college:

       16. From perusal of the letter issued by the Punjab
F University, Chandigarh dated 27.6.1965 addressed to the
  Principal of all the Institutions affiliated with the University inviting
  attention to the office circular dated 27 .11.1963, it is clear that
  the decision was taken atthe meeting of the syndicate held on
  19.10.1963 laying down the minimum qualifications for both
G the teaching staffs of the affiliated Institutions. It was further
  decided by the University that those teachers who are
  confirmed hands and over 40 years of age will be approved
  on the basis of their long teaching experience etc. even if they
  do not exactly fulfill the qualification.
H
         17. As noticed above, the appellants have been working
  GURDAS SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        771
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

for the last 25 years in the respondent Institutions and teaching A
the students of the college. The reason given by the High Court
is that for the purpose of claiming pay-scale at par with the
college teachers, the minimum requirement is that one _has to
clear the State Level Eligibility Test. In our view, that condition
will not apply so far the appellants are concerned as because B
on the date when they were appointed and transferred to the
college there was no requirement for having the qualification
of State Level Eligibility Test. The qualification of the candidate
is considered at thetime of appointment and not after rendering C
25 years of service in the college.

     18. The submission of the State counsel is that the
appellant is only Acharya and, therefore, he can only get the
benefit of merger. We are unable to accept the submi.ssion
made by the learned counsel. Further, the High Court is not D
correct in holding that merely because the appellants have
higher qualifications would not mean that they automatically
become entitled to the pay-scale of higher post than the post
to which they were appointed. The ratio decided in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Kamal Shahrawatwill not apply in the E
facts of the present case for the simple reason that the
appellants have been serving in the college as a lecturer for
the last 25 years.

      19. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter,       F
we are of the view that in the special facts and circumstances
of the present case, the appellants are entitled to get the
pay-scale at par with the teachers of the respondent college
inasmuch as they have been discharging the same duties and
also possessing the required qualification. However, this order      G
will not create a precedent.

     20. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as
to costs.
                                                                      H
Devika Gujral                                    Appeals allowed.