STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusDHARAM SINGH & ORS.

                                     [2009) 1 S.C.R. 979


-    ....

            -t                STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
                                              v.
                                                                                 A

                                  DHARAM SINGH & ORS.
-1
                               (Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2009)
                                     FEBRUARY 6, 2009
                                                                                 B
                     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
            _.
            _                       SHARMA, JJ.]

                      Service Law - Claim of respondents for entitlement to
                 promotional increments - Directions given by High Court to      c
                 consider the claim - Challenged - Held: High Court came
                 to an abrupt conclusion regarding entitlement relying on an
                 earlier decision without indicating as to how the factual
                 scenario was similar- Matter remitted to High Court to decide
                 the matter afresh.                                              D
                      The respondents filed writ petition claiming
                 entitlement to promotional increments on the basis that
                 they were working as J.B.T. teachers and were promoted
                 to the post of Headmaster on the basis on seniority-cum-
                                                                                 E
                 merit. High Court allowed the petition.

                      In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the
                 directions given by High Court to consider the case of
            ~    the respondents for grant of increment had no legal basis.
                                                                                 F
                     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

                     HELD:1. The High Court came to an abrupt
                 conclusion regarding entitlement relying on an earlier
--i              decision without indicating as to how the factual scenario
                 was similar. [Para 7) [982-B]                                   G

            +         2. In the aforesaid background, the matter is remitted
                 to the High Court to consider the applicability and
-"               relevance of Pratap Singh's case to the facts of the present
                                             979                                 H
    980           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 1 S.C.R.
                                                                                  ,....
A case and to decide the matter afresh. [Para 8) [982-C)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 753
                                                                           lo--   -
    of 2009.
                                                                                     ·-
      From the Judgment/Order dated 5.12.2000 in CWP No.
B 663/1999 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
  Chandigarh.

          Manjit Singh, MG. and T.V. George for the Appellant.

          Balbir Singh Gupta for the Respondent.
c
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.

         2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
D
    Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing
    the writ petition filed by the respondents. The High Court relied
    on an earlier decision rendered by it in Civil Writ Petition
    No.15157 of 1998.

E        3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
  submitted that the directions given by the High Court to consider
  the case of the respondents for grant of one increment on
  account of promotion to the next higher rank has no legal basis.
  It is pointed out that the respondents claim was for promotional
F increments. The writ petitioners claimed promotional
  increments on the basis that they were working as J.B.T.
  teachers and were promoted to the post of Headmaster on the
  basis of seniority-cum-merit. They have already received the
  same higher pay scale of the Headmaster as a personal
G measure, prior to being promoted and without performing the
  dues of higher responsibility at that stage. Strong reliance was
  placed on a decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr.           ,.
  v. Partap Singh and Ors. (2006 (10) SCC 251 ).

          4. The ratio in that decision is as follows:
                                                                                     .
H
STATE OF HARYANAAND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]          981


           "The respondents were already getting the functional A
     pay of Masters while working as JBT teachers. Because
     of regular promotion order being issued for the post of
     Masters, it only amounted to regularization of the pay scale
     which they were already drawing i.e. pay scale of Masters.
     Thus, granting of one more increment because of B
     regularization of the respondents by promoting them to the
     post of Masters, would not entitle them to the double
     benefit; though they have already got one increment on
     acquiring the higher educational qualifications and now on
     regular promotion being given in the Masters' pay scale     c
     in which they were already working, they cannot claim
    another benefit. Under Rule 4.4 it could have been
    possible to grant them fixation if they were continuing in
    the old scale of JBT teachers and on their promotion to
    the post of Master, then certainly they would have been
                                                                  0
    entitled to fixation of pay giving them the initial pay the
    stage of timescale next above their substantive pay in
    respect of the old post. But they are already fixed in the
    pay scale of higher post of Master which though
    legitimately they were not entitled to because of the change E
    in the policy but they continued in the higher pay scale
   despite the change in the policy and the Government did
   not take any further steps to put the house in proper order.
   Be that as it may, since the respondents were drawing the
   higher pay scale on acquiring of higher educational
   qualifications i.e. the Master's pay scale, and now only F
   regular orders have been passed, promoting them as
   Master, there is no question of again fixing them next
   above their substantive pay in respect of the old post. They
   are not holding the old post any more and they were not
   drawing the salary of JBT teachers i.e. the old post. G
   Therefore, there is no question of granting them the initial
   pay the stage of timescale next above their substantive pay
   in respect of the old post. Judicial fiat cannot create
   anomalous position against the statute."
                                                                  H
    982         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2009) 1 S.C.R.


A       5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
    submitted that Pratap Singh's case (supra) has no relevance
    and it is factually distinguishable.

          6. The factual scenario has been spelt out above.
B         7. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion regarding
    entitlement relying on an earlier decision without indicating as
    to how the factual scenario was similar.

          8. In the aforesaid background, we deem it fit to remit the
c matter to the High Court to consider the applicability and
    relevance of Pratap Singh's case (supra) to the facts of the
    present case and to decide the matter afresh.

         9. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as
    early as practicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
0
    B.B.B.                                     Appeal disposed of.