Holding

Paragraph 2 of the 1967 circular confers higher grades only on persons holding the post of Lecturer; therefore the appellants are not entitled to those grades.

Summary

The appellants, teachers (Masters/Mistresses) employed in Punjab state schools, held postgraduate qualifications but were paid under the Rs 220‑500 scale. They claimed entitlement to higher pay grades (Rs 300‑450/600 or Rs 250‑400/550) prescribed in paragraph 2 of the State Government Circular Letter dated 29 July 1967, arguing that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 14 of the Constitution applied. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions and the Division Bench affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the circular’s higher grades were applicable to teachers who were not appointed as Lecturers. It held that paragraph 2 expressly applies only to posts of Lecturer, which are limited in number, and the appellants do not hold such posts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether teachers who are not appointed as Lecturers are entitled to the higher pay grades specified in paragraph 2 of the 29 July 1967 circular under the principle of equal pay for equal work (Article 14).

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

equal payArticle 14teachers' pay scalePunjab Education Servicecircular letterLecturer gradediscriminationservice law

Judgment

A
GURPAL TULl AND ORS., !OTC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
B
September 28, 1984

[R.S. PATHAK AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J

Constitution of India 1950-1rtic!e 14-'equa/ pay for equal work'-
c Principle-Applicability of-State Government circular stipulatinz different
grades of pay-Entitlement to a grade when arises.

Civil Services : Punjab Education Service-State Government circular-
dijferen: grades of pay for different categories-Entitlement to a grade when
arises.
D
The appellants who were employed as Masters and Mistresses in High
and Higher Secondary Schools run by the State Government and possessed
an M.A. or M.Sc. or B.T. or B.Bd. degree contended in their writ petitions
that they were paid according to the pay scale of Rs. 220-500 and ·claimOd
that they were entilled to either of the higher grades set forth in paragraph
2 of the State Government Circular Letter dated July 29, 1967 viz. Rsi
E 300-25·450/25-600 for those with !st and 2nd Division Master's Degree
and Rs. 250·25-400/25-550 for thoso with 3rd Class Master's Degree. The
High Court negatived their contentions and dismissed the writ petition, and
this was affirmed by the Division Bench in appeal. ' -

Dismissing the Appeal to thi1 Court,
F
HELD: 1. The grades specified in paragraph 2 of the Circular
Letter dated July, 29, 1967 arc applicable only to thoso who speciftcally
hold the posts of lecturer. There arc a limited number of Such posts, and
appointment to them is strictly subject to the conditions detailed in para•
graph 2 of the Circular Letter. The contention on behalf of the appellants
that on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"-Randhir Singh v.
G Union of India and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 298 they are entitled to th• grades
mentioned in para 2 of the Circular Letter dated July 29, 1967 has therC?-
foro to be negatived. [88& D; C]

2. The appellants claim the benefit of par<1uraph 2 of fhe Circular
Letter dated July 29, 1967 and therefore no reliance can be placed by
them on the Circular Letters da1ed February, 19, 1979 and September, 20,
1979 which relate merely to the scheme embodied in the Circular Letter
11
ililRi>AL fuLi v. PUN1AB (Pathak, J.)

dated July 23, 1957. The Circular Leiter dated July, 29, 1967 operates A
on a very different plane from the Circular Letter dated July 23, 1957.
(888 B; 885 E]

3. The decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kh-pal Singh
Bhatia~ [1976] 1 SCR 529 is of no assistance to the appellants. That was a
case which was primarily concerned with Circular Letter daled July, 23,
1957. . [885 D] B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3452-54
and 4030-32 of 1982.

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 20th November, 1979 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in c
L.P.A. Nos. 26, 62, 29, 38, 39, and 30 of 1978.

R.K. Garg and N.S. Das Bahl for the Appellants in CAs. Nos.
3452-54 of 1982.

M.K. Ramamurthi, and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellants in D
CAs. 4031 /82 and CAs. 4030-32 of 1982.

P.P. Rao and D.D. Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
PATHAK, J. The appellants, in these appeals by special leave,
are aggrieved by the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana affirming the dismissal of their writ petitions
. ' by a learned Single Judge of that Court.

The appellants arc teachers in the service of the State of F
Punjab. They claim the grades prescribed in paragraph 2 of the
Government Circular letter No. 2036-ED. 1-67/2167 dated July 29,
1967, and in that regard seek the benefit of tbe Circular lotter No.
9/9/79-FR (2)/143 dated February 19, 1979 and its clarification by
Circular letter No. 8937-5ED. 1179 /2659 dated September 20, 1979.
G
The Circular letter dated July 29, 1967 gave effect to the
recommendattons of the Kothari Commission with effect from
November I, 1966 in respect of teachers in Government Schools.
Paragraph 2 of the Circular letter provided :-

''2. Lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools, Punjab
Institute of English- and Masters/Mistresses with Post- II
•
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985j i s.c.a.

graduate qualifications in High/Higher Secondary Schools
will be placed in Rs. 300-25-450/25-600 grade provided
they have I st and 2nd Division Master's Degree. Those
with 3rd Class Master's Degree will be placed in the grade
of Rs. 250-25-400/25-550."

B It was specified that "the number of posts in Lecturer's grade
will be i57[ i.e. 742 posts for the existing school Lecturers and 829
additional po>ts for other MastcrsiMistresses with Post-graduate
qualifications." It was clarified that "the Masters/Mistresses will be
eligible to Lecturer's grade onli if they have Post-graduate qualifica-
tions in the subject of their teaching. No one will be entitled to
c those 829 additional posts automatically. These posts will be alloca-
ted to various subjects keeping in view the requirements of the
educational institutions and the appointments will be made keeping
in view the rules/instructions as amended from time to time." Para-
graph 3 stated that "all trained graduates and all other Masters with
Post-graduate qualifications, who are not fitted in the scale of
D Lecturer, will be in the scale of Rs. 220-8-300-10-400/20-500."

It is apparent that paragraph 2 of the Circular letter dated
July 29, 1967 is concerned essentially with providing for a Lecturer's
Grade:

E (I) It was intended to have 1571 posts in the Lecturer's
grade, consisting of 742 posts for the existing Lecturers
and another 829 posts for Masters or Mistresses.
Masters or Mistresses were eligible for those posts in
the Lecturer's grade only if they possessed Post-graduate
qualifications in the subject of their teaching. Those
F who did not satisfy that criterion were not eligible for
those posts. Moreover, no one was entitled to any of
the 829 additional posts antomatically. The additional
posts were to be di;tributed with reference to different
subjects, and the distribution would be made having
regard to the requirements of the educational institu-
G
tions and subject to the rules and instructions currently
in force.

(2) Existing Lecturers and Masters or Mistresses with Post-
graduate qualifications, who possessed a Master's degree
in the first or second division, w<>uld be-entitled to
II the grade of Rs. 300·25-450/25-600. Lecturers and
GURPAL TULi v. PUNJAB (Pathak, J.) 885

Masters or Mistresses with Post-graduate qualifications A
who possessed a Master's degrees in the third division
would be entitled to the grade of Rs. 250-25-400/
25-550.

The appellants say that they are employed as Masters and
Mistresses in High and Higher Secondary Schools run by the Pudjab B
Government and possess an M.A. or M.Sc. or B.T. or B. Ed. degree
and some of them have even acquired an M.Ed. degree. They are
presently paid according to the pay scale Rs. 220-500. They claim
that they are entitled to either of the higher grades set forth in
paragraph 2 of the Circular letter dated July 29, 1967. From what
has gone before it is clear that they can legitimately claim the benefit c
of those grades only if they arc appointed to the posts of Lectnrer.
And they do not dispute that they are not incumbents of those
posts.

Much reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court D
in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatial1 ). In our opinion, that
case is of no assistance to tho appellants. That was a case which was
primarily concerned with Circular letter No. 5058 FR-II-57 /5600
dated July 23, 1957.

The Circular letter dated July 29, 1967 operates on a very E
different plane from the Circular letter dated July 23, 1957. A brief
reference to the historical background of the Circular letter dated
July 23, 1957 will suffice.

Concerned at the low salaries granted to certain categories of F
Government servents, the Punjab Government issued Circular letter
No. 5058.FR-l l ) 7/5600 dated July 23, 1957 revising their scales of
pay. Paragraph 3 classified all teachers in the Education Depart-
ment according to their qualifications in two broad categories,
category A being :-
G
"B.A./B'.Sc./B.Com:/B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.T./Dip-
loma m Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Train-
ing".

and they would now carry the scale of pay: -
!. fl976j J S.C.R. 529,
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) I s.c.R.

A "Rs. ll0-8·190·10-250 with a higher starr for M.A.
or M.Sc. as at present."

As is evident, the category was defined by reference to the
possession of the specified graduate degree or Diploma. In the
event such a teacher also held a Post-graduate degree h<: was entitled
to a higher start in the grade. The grade, however, remained the
same.
B
It appears that several teacher filed wtit 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
c the grade mentioned against Category 'A' in the Circular letter dated
July 23, 1957. In opposition to the writ petitions, the State Govern·
ment contended that the letter did not contemplate the grant of the
g~ade to all teachers but only to teachers appointed as Masters. The
High Court held the teachers entitled tJ the benefit of the revised
D 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 (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
E dated July 23, 1957 to the much wider section of teachers covered
in consequence of the Court's judgement. Accordingly, the State
Government issued Circular letter No. 9/9/79-FR (2)1143 dated
February 19, J 979, 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
F
henceforth the teac'.lers of the Educ1tion 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 acquirring higher qualifica-
tions in the course of their service. The rigour of the restriction was
G" relaxed in some measure. Paragraph 3 said further :-
"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
thongh they also possess higher qualifications it is decided
that all teachers in t4e Ed~cation Department who qayy
GURPAL TULi v. PUNJAB (Pathak, J) 887

improved their qualifications before the issue of this letter A
may be allowed the benefit of higher scale of on the basis of
their qualifications."

The benefit was not extended to those who were appointed or
who bad improved their qualifications after the issue of that Cir-
cular letter. The teachers continued to agitate for a more generous
B
dispensation. The· State Government then issued Circular letter.
No. 8937-.IED.1179/2659 dated September 20, 1979_. which
declared :
.. "The implementation ofthe decision contained in Finance
Department Circular letter No. 9/9/79 FR (2)/143 dated
c
February 19, 1979 to grant higher pay scales to the teachers
on the basis of higher qua1ifii::ations was kept pending for
want of clarification on certain points from the Finance
Department which has now become available and is repro-
duced below :- D

1. The higher scale may be allowed from the date of pass-
ing 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 E
the date of passing the examination till 13.2.1979 be
restricted to the maximum for 38 months.

2. The benefit of the higher scale may be all JWed from the
date a particular teacher is appointed on regular basis F
or the date of passing the higher examination, which-
ever 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 G
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."

Jt w~s cl~rified that the contemplated benefit was co11fine<;I to If
888 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (1985] l s.c.R.

A the categories of teachers mentioned in the Circular letter No. 5058
FR Il-57 /5600 dated July 23, 1957.

The appellants claim the benefit of paragraph 2 of the Circular
letter dated July 29, 1967, and therefore no reliance can be placed by
them on the Circular letters dated February 19, 1979 and September
B
20, 1979, which relate merely to the scheme embodi<d in the Cir·
cular letter dated July 23, 1957.

The appellants contend that on the principle of "equal pay for
equal work'', affirmed by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of •
c India & Ors.(1) they are entitled to the grades mentioned in para-
graph 2 of the Circular Jotter dated July 29, 1967. It is urged that
like those Masters or Mistresses who have been given that benefit
they have acquired Post-graduate qualifications and are doing. the
same kind of work. As has been explained earlier, the grades speci-
fied in paragraph 2 of the Circular letter dated July 29, 1967 are
D applicable only to those who specifically hold the posts of Lecturer.
There are a limited number of such posts, and appointment to them
is strictly subject to the conditions detailed in paragraph 2 of the
Circular letter.

Jn the result the appeals fail and are dismissed, but in the cir-
E cumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.

(j) J1982) 3 S.C.R. 298,