Holding

Teachers who acquire post‑graduate qualifications are not automatically entitled to the higher pay scales applicable to lecturers unless they are appointed to the lecturer post.

Summary

The petitioners, teachers in Haryana, claimed that acquiring post‑graduate qualifications entitled them to the higher pay scales of lecturers without being appointed as lecturers, relying on Government circulars of 1957 and 1968. The High Court, agreeing that the matter was covered by the Full Bench decision in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna, ordered relief in terms of that ratio, which the State appealed. The Supreme Court examined the Punjab Educational Service Rules, the Haryana lecturer rules, and the relevant circulars, finding that the post of lecturer has always been governed by separate rules and was never included in the school cadre pay scales. Consequently, teachers are not automatically eligible for lecturer pay scales merely by obtaining the qualifications. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition as meritless and allowed the State to recover any excess payments made. The appeal was allowed, and the related Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The entitlement of teachers who acquire post‑graduate qualifications to the higher pay scales applicable to lecturers without appointment to the lecturer post.
The interpretation of the 1957 and 1968 Government circulars and their applicability to the lecturer post.
The validity of the contempt petition filed by a teacher for non‑payment of lecturer pay scales.

Subjects

service lawpay scaleteacherslecturerspost‑graduate qualificationcontemptexcess payment recoveryHaryanaPunjab Educational Service Rules

Judgment

•.• ' THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. A
v.
KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND ORS. ETC.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B

Service law :

Pay scale-Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in school~Acquiring
post graduate qualifications-Claim for higher pay scale applicable to Lee-
turers without actually being appointed to that post-Entitlement of-Held,
c
not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Lee-
turer~State Government pennitted to recover excess payments made-Con-
tempt petition pending before High Court dismissed'-Punjab Educational
Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 195~Haryana State Education
Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. D

Respondents were working as teachers/Masters/Mistresses in dif-
ferent schools of appellant-State. On acquiring post graduate qualifica-
tions while in service, they claimed higher pay scales avplicable to
Lecturers without actually appointed to that post. They placed reliance
E
upon the Govt. Letters/Circulars dated 23.7.1957 and 5.1.1968. In the writ
petition before the High Court as parties agreed that the matter was
squarely covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of High Court in
Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case, an order was passed in terms of the ratio
given in that case. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, filed a contempt petition
before the High Court for non-payment of pay scales applicable to lee- F
turers. Appellants instead of contesting the said contempt petition, filed
the present appeal. Several writ petitions filed by similarly placed teachers
were dismissed by High Court negativing their claim. SLPs were preferred
against those orders also.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G

f HELD : 1. The Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in different
schools in appellant State are not automatically entitled to claim higher
pay scales applicable to Lecturers on acquiring post graduate qualifica-
tions without being appointed as Lecturers. [85-E] H
67
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Gurpal Tuli & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1984) Supp SCC 716;
Baij Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1976] 8 SCC 516; Wazir Singh !BT
Teacher and Qrs., v. State of Haryana though its Secretary, Education Depart-
ment & Ors., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 697 and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ravi
Bala & Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 267, relied on.

B State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC
740; referred to.

Punjab Higher Qualified Teacher 'Union & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc., [1988) 2 SCC 407; Chaman Lal & Ors. Etc. v.
C State of Haryana Etc., [1987] 2 SCC 113; Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State
of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and Haryana P. 246; distinguished.

2. Before reorganisation of State, school teachers in State of Punjab
were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre
Rules, 1955. Appendix 'A' of the s~id Rule setting out the designation of
D posts did not refer to any post designated as Lecturers. The post of
lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets of rules and
never by the 1955 Rules or the amendments thereto. In the letter dated
23.7.1957, ·issued by the Government regarding pay revision, there is no
reference to the post to lecturer as there was no such post in the school
E cadre at that time. After reorganisation, appellant State accepting the
recommendations of "Kothari Commission", revised the pay scales of
teachers vide its letter dated 5.1.1968. There is nothing in the said letter
to show that the post of lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to the
1955 Rules. There is nothing in the letter to show that the _teachers were
automatically entitled to became lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay
F applicable to the lecturers. Thus, a perusal of the Educational Service
Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments
from time to time and the subsequent Government policy letters and
circulars show that the teachers are not entitled to higher pay scales
applicabl~ to the post of lecturers. [73-F; 74-G; 76-G; 77-B-C; 78-E)

G 3. The Full Bench in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case had no occasion to ..
consider the question whether the teachers would be entitled to the scales
of pay applicable to the lecturers automatically on their acquiring post
graduate qualifications. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be con-
tended that the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench was that those who
H had acquired post graduate qualifications were automatically entitled to
\
1
)
STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT(SRINIVASAN,J.) 69

;: pay scales of lecturers. [86-C] A
*Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and
Haryana P. 246; distinguished.

4. The contempt petition before the High Court was on the face of it
without any merit and there· was no justification for the High Court in B
issuing notice on the said petition for contempt. Since the appeal has been
pending from 1990, no purpose will be served by taking a technical view of
the matter and directing the appellants to appear before the .High Court
and contest the proceeding in contempt. Thus, the contempt petition pend-
ing before High Court is dismissed. [86-G-H; 87-A; HJ
c
5. The State of Government is entitled to recover from respondent no.
1 and such other persons to whom higher pay scales applicable to lec.turers
were paid for which they were not entitled to. [87 -F -G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4304 of
1990. I>
WITH

S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10080/95, 1008-11/98, 944-951/98, 1000/98, 1002/98,.
1005-06/98, 1003-04/98 and C.A. No. 2104/98.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.88 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 7122 of 1988.

M.L. Verma, Jasbir Malik, Mahabir Singh, Ms. Shubra Kapur, Sanjay
Kapur, Pankaj Katra, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Ranbir Yadav1 Prem Malhotra,
T.C. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. K. Sharda Devi and F
C.S. Ashri for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SRINIVASAN, J. I. Factual canvas
G
The earliest appeal in this Batch was filed by the State of Haryana
and The Director of Public Instructions, Haryana. The appeal came to
be filed in this Court in somewhat peculiar circumstances. The order of

J
the High Court against which the appeal was filed was passed by a
Single Judge of the High Court on 3rd December, 1988 in C.W.P.
7122/88 on the basis of consent of counsel on both sides. The order was H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in the following terms :
"The parties' counsel agree that this petition is squarely covered
by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bhagwan Dutt
Shanna and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., I.L.R. (1988) Vol.
II Punjab 246. There will be an order in terms of the ratio given
B in that case."

2. The said writ petition was filed in the High Court by the respon-
dents in the appeal. They were working as Teachers/Masters/ Mistresses
in different schools of Haryana. They had acquired post graduate qualifica-
C tions while in service. The relevant particulars were given by them in the
Writ Petition. According to them, the erstwhile State of Punjab had issued
a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 raising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f.
1st May, 1957 and that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled
to pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them irrespective of
the post held by them. It was their case that the policy decision of the
D Punjab Government was adopted by the Haryana Government after it was
formed. The latter issued an order directi,1g further revision of the scales
of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968. Reliance was
placed by the writ petitioners on the recommendations contained in the
report of Kothari Commission which has been accepted by the Govern-
ment. The writ petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in
E Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987] 3 SCC 113 and stated that
they were entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on the
basis of their qualifications as they had become post graduates. The prayer
in the Writ Petition was for issue of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents therein to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners in accord-
ance with Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition on the basis of higher
F qualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court in Chaman
Lat's Case and also for release of consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay,
arrears etc. alongwith 12% interest.

3. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in the appeal.
G When it was taken up for hearing, the counsel on both sides agreed that
the matter was covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court
in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna's Case I.L.R. 1988 Vol. II Punjab 248. Hence the
High Court passed the order as stated above.

4. Thereafter the first petitioner in the writ petition filed a petition
H for contempt to punish the appellants in the appeal for not paying the writ
STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT(SRINIVASAN,J.] 71

' petitioners as per the pay scale applicable to lecturers. Th~ High Court A
issued notice on the application for contempt On receipt of such notice,
the Government and The Director of Public Instructions thought fit to file
a petition for Special Leave. in this Court along With an application for
condonation of delay in presentation of the same. Obviously, the Govern-
ment assumed that because the High Court had issued notice in the
proceedings of contempt, orders would be passed against it in those
B
proceedings and instead of contesting the same, the Government presented
the petition for Special Leave in this Court. The delay was condoned by
order dated 17th August, 1990 and leave was granted. In the application
for stay, this Court passed the following order :
c
"After hearing both counsel, we are of the opinion that there
should be no stay of the High Court's orders so far as this petition
is concerned. If, however, the State ultimately succeeds , it will be
entitled to appropriate relief."

5. Though, this Court refused to grant stay, it is .admitted before us D
by counsel on both sides that the petitioner in the contempt petition is the
only person to whom higher pay on the scale of pay applicable to lecturers
was being paid and to all other persons, salary was paid only on. the pay
scale applicable to masters and not lecturers.
E
6. The contention of the Government in the appeal is that before the
High Court, counsel had only admitted that the matter was governed by
the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt
Shanna's case and the said judgment did not hold that the teachers were
entitled to get higher pay on pay scales applicable to le~turers. Learned
F
counsel submitted that the judgment had only decided that the petitioners
in the case before the Full Bench were entitled to masters' pay from the
date they acquired the higher qualifications. According to learned counsel,
the judgment of the Full Bench can never be understood to hold that
teachers who had acquired post graduate qualifications were entitled to
the scales of pay applicable to lecturers. G

- 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/
respondents in the appeal contended that the last sentence in the order of
, the High Court made it clear that the order in the writ petition was in terms
of the ratio given in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna's case. According to learned H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
·· A counsel for the writ petitioners, the ratio in Bhagwan Dutt Sharma's case
was that the pay of the teachers was linked to their qualifications. It was
argued that the principle of pay being linked to qualification as
recommended in Kothari Commission report was accepted by the
Government and implemented in the Circular dated 5th January, 1968.
B Hence, the writ petitioners were, according to him, entitled to higher scales
of pay applicable to lecturers as they had acquired postgraduate
qualifications which were the qualifications prescribed for lecturers.

8. Our attention was drawn by Counsel on both sides to the Govern-
ment Circulars issued from time to time as well as Rules which governed
C the education service in 1957. Counsel on both sides referred in detail to
various judgments of this Court considering the Government Circulars and
the Rules.

9. Subsequent to the judgment in CWP 7122 of 1988, the High Court
D had occasion to consider the same question in several other writ petitions
filed by similarly placed teachers. By a detailed judgment dated 5th June,
1990 in Bachan Lal Lahori v. State of Haryana, in CWP, 770 of 1989, the
High Court negatived the claim of the teachers that they were entitled to
the pay scales applicable to lecturers. That judgment was rendered in a
E batch of cases and S.L.P. 1005-06 of 1998 have been fi.led against the order
in CWP 374 of 1989 and 1039 of 1989 which were in that batch. It appears
that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High court
in Bachan Lal case.

10. In CWP 6045of1989, the High Court passed an order on 11/7/91
F following the ruling in Bachan Lal's Case and dismissing the writ petition
against which S.L.P. 1002 of 1998 has been filed. Against similar judgment
dated 15th October, 1993 in CWP 1119 of 1989 and 11394 of 1988, S.L.P
Nos. 10080 of 1995 and 1000 of 1998 have been filed.
>.
G 11. On 2.8.1995, the High Court passed a detailed order in CWP 6478
of 1995 (Tilak Raj Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana) reiterating the
order in Bachan Lat's case. S.L.P. 1003-04 of 1998 have been filed against
the said judgment and the judgment in CWP 6477 of 1995. Another
judgment was rendered on 13th February, 1997 in CWP 17192 of 1996
H following the judgment in Tilak Raj Gupta's case. Against that, Civil
STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN,J.] 73

Appeal No. 2104 of 1998 has been preferred. A

-· 12. Just as the first petitioner in CWP 7122 of 1988 filed a petition
for punishing the Government and the officials for contempt, several other
teachers also filed applications for punishing the Government and the
officials for contempt. Some of the teachers filed proceedings for execution
of the orders in the writ petitions. The proceedings in contempt were also
B
treated as execution proceedings. All such proceedings were dismissed by
orders dated 21st May, 1997. Against the said orders, the aggrieved
teachers have filed S.L.Ps. No. 944-51 of 1998 ;md S.L.P. Nos. 1008-1011
of 1998. As the question involved in all these proceedings is the same, they
were heard together. c
II Common Question

i3. The common question which arises for decision in all these
matters is whether the teachers/masters/mistresses working in different D
schools in the State of Haryana are automatically entitled to the higher
scales of pay applicable to lecturers on and from the date of their acquiring
the academic qualifications (Post Graduation) prescribed for the post of
"Lecturer". Some teachers are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4304/98
filed by the State of Haryana while several groups of teachers are
petitioners in SLPs referred to above. and appellants in Civil Appeal E
No.2104/98. It is better that in the first instance we advert to the relevant
rules and circulars in order to answer the question raised.

III Service Rules, Government Circulars and Policy Letters
F
14. Before the formation of the State of Haryana in 1966, the position
of the teachers in the schools in Punjab was governed by the Punjab
Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules,1955. They were framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Punjab.
The expression 'Service' was defined to mean the Punjab Educational
Service, Class III - School Cadre. Rule 10 read that members of the service G
would be entitled to such scales of pay as may be authorized by the
Government from time to time and the scales of pay the~ in force as
....., specified in Appendix "A" against each post. Appendix "A" set out the
~ number of sanctioned posts (permanent and temporary), scale of pay and
, the designation of posts. The column setting out the designation of the post H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A referred only to Head-masters, Masters, Science Masters, Agricultural
Masters, Language teachers, Art and Craft teachers in the Men's Branch
and similarly Head Mistress, Mistresses, Language teachers etc. in the
Women's Branch. What is to be noted is that Appendix "A" did not refer
-
to any post designated as lecturer.

B 15. It is not in dispute that for the first time in 1963-64, the posts of
lecturers in the school cadre were created when Higher Secondary schools
were established. Before that, there were only three types of schools,
namely, primary upto 4th class, middle upto 8th class and High School upto
10th class. When the category of Higher Secondary schools upto 11th class
C was introduced, the posts of lecturers were also created. The scales of pay
for the posts of lecturers and the qualifications prescribed for the same
were fixed by Executive instructions as they were not governed by the
Punjab Educational Service Rules referred to above. Till 1.2.1983 there
· were two scales of pay for lecturers - one being lower for those who had
D passed M.A./M.Sc in 3rd Division and the other being higher for those who
had passed M.A./M.Sc in 1st and 2nd Division. The two scales were later
· revised from 1.2.1983 when it was decided that only persons with
M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. in 1st or 2nd Division would be appointed as Lec-
turers. With effect from 19.3.1985 it was further decided that only persons
with at least 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. would be appointed as
E Lecturers. That is evident from a copy of the letter No.15/38-05- E-43 dated
1.5.85 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana to all
Sub-divisions in the State (vide Page 69 in Vol. II in C.A. 4304/90).
Subsequently, in 1998" the Governor of Haryana framed rules under Ar-
ticle 309 of the Constitution known as "Haryana State Education Lecturer
F School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules 1998" regulating the recruitment
and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana State School
Education Lecturers School Cadre. Thus it is seen that the post of Lecturer
was never governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School
Cadre Rules and was always governed by a separate set .of rules. As stated
earlier, Appendix "A" to the Punjab Educational Service Class III School
G Cadre Rules did not include the post of Lecturer at any time.

16. Strong reliance is placed by the teachers upon the letter dated
23.7.19S7 issued .by the Government of Punjab before State
Re-organization. That letter was issued by the Government after
H considering the recommendations made by the Pay Revision Committee
-
STATE v. K.S. Sf'.HARWAT [SRINIVASAN, J.] 75

. appointed to examine the revision of scales of pay of the subordinate A
services and removal of anomalies occasioned by the piecemeal revision of
scales of pay of certain classes of the non-gazetted Government servants.
According to the said letter it was decided that existing scales of pay of
certain categories of posts should with effect from 1st May 1957 be revised
as shown in the statement enclosed. Paragraph 3 of the letter pertained to B
teachers in the Education Department.

17. The relevant part .bf the letter reads thus :

"It has been decided that all teachers according to their qualifica-
tions should be placed in the following two broad categories: C

Category 'A'

B.A./B.Sc./B.Com/B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.T./Diploma m
Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training.

Category 'B'
D

Group I Matrics with ASIC training (including J.S.Ts).

Group II J.S.Ts (including Assistant Mistresses with B.A. inter
Matric Plus J.A.V. Training.
E
·Group III (I) Shastries :

(ii) Gianis, Prabhakar, Drawing Masters and Craftsman Certificate
Holders
F
(iii) Munshi Fazils

(iv) S.Ts including S.Vs with training in Physical Education.

Group IV: Untrained teachers with qualification like B.Coms,
B.Sc. (Agriculture) etc. G

In addition there are similar categories of special posts, such as
Headmasters/Headmistresses/District Inspectors/lnspectoresses
of schcols, with qualifications of category 'A' above.

Teachers in these categories, regardless of men and women H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A cadres, should carry the following scale of pay :

Category 'A' Rs.110-8-190/10-250, with higher start for M.A. or
"'-
M.Sc as at present. The existing percentage of posts fixed by
Government for the scale of Rs.110-8-190-10-250 and Rs.250-10-
300 should remain unchanged at 85% and 15% respectively.
B
Category 'B' Lower Rs.60-4-80-5-120

Middle Rs.120-5-175

Upper Rs.140-10-250
c
With a view to providing incentives, it has been decided that posts
falling in these groups should be in the following percentages :

Group I Lower Scale - 85%

D Middle Scale - 15%

15% of teachers in this group should straight away be promoted
to the middle scale by selection based on seniority and merit, while
the rest should be given the lower scale.'

E 18. There is no reference in the letter to the post of Lecturer as there
was no such post in the school cadre at that time.

19. With effect from 1.11.1966, the State of Haryana came into
existence. Earlier there was an Education Commission popularly known as
"Kothari Commission" at the national level which made recommendations
F regarding further revision of pay scales of teachers who were divided into
several categories. The basis for classifications adopted by the Commission
was academic qualifications. The recommendations of the Kothari
Commission were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales
of teachers were revised and the decision of the Government was contained
G in letter No.152-Edu.II-68/540 dated 5th January 1968 from the Secretary
to Government of Haryana, Education Department, Chandigarh to the
Director of Public Instruction, Haryana, Chandigarh. The letter also fixed
the percentage in which various incumbents were to be divided for
purposes of higher scale or the lower scale as mentioned in the letter.
H Column II referred to the category of teachers and Column III set out the
STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN,J.] 77

revised grades. SI. No.l pertains to J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. etc. SI.• No.2 A
pertains to Masters/Mistresses (Trained Graduates). SI. No.3 relates to
Lecturers (Post Graduates). The N.B. reads : "The lecturers will be given
one advance increment as soon as they attain professional training". SI. No.
4 refers to Head masters/Headmistresses etc. There is nothing in the said
letter to show that the post of Lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to B
the Punjab Educational Service Rules or that it came to be governed by
the said Rules. The letter refers merely to revision of scales of pay and
does not set out the method of recruitment or conditions of service. There
is nothing in the letter to show that the categories of teachers set out in SI.
No. 1 and SI. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become lecturers or
entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the lecturers. c
20. It may be mentioned here that there was an earlier letter issued
by the Punjab Government on 29.7.1967 revising the pay scales of the
teaching personnel of Government Schools in the State of Punjab w.e.f.
1.11.1966 after consideration of the recommendations made by the Kothari D
Commission. Though the said letter is not applicable to the teachers in the
present case, reference has been made to the same and reliance has been
placed on a decision of this Court in which the said letter was considered.
We will advert to that decision later and it is unnecessary for us to dilate
any further on the letter of the Punjab Government dated 29.7.1967. E

21. Learned counsel appearing for some of the teachers placed
before us policy letters dated 19.2.1979 and 20.9.1979 issued by the
Government of Punjab and wanted to draw inference therefrom that the
principle of pay being linked to qualifications as recommended by Kothari
Commission's report has been implemented in the State of Punjab and the F
same inference should be drawn with reference to the State of Haryana
also. We are unable to accept that contention.

22. Insofar as the State of Haryana is concerned, one other letter has
been placed before us by the counsel for the State Government viz. Jetter G
No.7/2(1)/90-4 FR-I Dated, Chandigarh, the 9th March1990 sent by the
Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance
Department to the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana,
Education Department. That Jetter makes a reference to the Circular Jetter
dated 23rd July 1957 issued by the Punjab Government to which we have H
78 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A already adverted in detail. The letter makes also reference to the
, subsequent letter dated. 5.1.1968 which has also been referred to by us
earlier. Reference has been made. to subsequent Notification No. GSR-
20/Const/Art/309/89 dated 29th February, 1980 by virtue of which the letter
dated 5.1.68' stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the said letter
B that the Haryana Government had revised the pay scales further under
Notification No. GSR- 20/Const/Art/309/87 dated 29.4.87 with effect from
1986. Ultimately, the letter clarifies that the teachers in the Education
Department in the State of Haryana were not entitled to be placed in the
higher scales of pay in terms of Para 3 of the Punjab Government letter
C · dated·23rdJuly 1957 or any subsequent letter or Notification issued by the
Haryana Government referred to therein which had become inoperative.
The last sentence in Para 6 of the letter reads as follows :

,"The masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed
in the sc_ales of pay of their respective categories to which they are
D appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possessing/ac-
quiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them automatically
to claim higher pay scales"

23. Thus a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have been
prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to time and the
E subsequent Government policy letters and circulars show that the teachers
are not entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to the posts of lecturers
automatically on their acquiring post graduate qualifications or such
qualifications as are prescribed for the post of lecturers. We have already
pointed out that .the post of lecturers has throughout been governed by
F different sets of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service Class
III School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the
common question raised in these matters has to be answered in the
negativ¢. against the teachers/masters/mistresses some of whom are respon-
dents in Civil Appeal No.4304 of 1990 and the others being petitioners in
S:L.Ps and appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2104/98. . ·
G
IV Rulings refemd to by Counsel on both sides.

· 24. Some. of the judgments cited relate to teachers in the State of
Punjab and others relate to teachers in the State of Haryana. We think it
H better to refer to cases relating to the teachers in the two States separately.
STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN, J.] 79

We should not be understood as holding that the position in the State of A
Punjab is different from the position in the State of Haryana. It may happen
· to be the same but .we do not express any opinion in this case on the
situation prevailing in the State of Pm;ijab. We are concerned here only
with the teachers in the State of Haryana. In order to appreciate the ratio
of the rulings relied on py, counsel on both sides, we refer to the cases
relating to the teachers in the State of Punjab separately and the cases
B
relating to teachers in the State of Haryana separately.

A Cases relating to teachers in the State of Punjab7

25. The earliest case arose with reference to the composite State of C
,.. Punjab before the Re-organization. In that case, the Government letter
dated 23.7.1957 to which we have made reference in extenso earlier was
considered. It cannot be disputed that the principle laid down in that case
will apply. equally to the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana insofar
as the interpretation of the Government letter dated· 23.7.1957 is con-
cerned. ])

(i) Kirpal Singh (1975] 4 S.C.C. 740

26. The case was reported as State of Punjab and Another v. Kirpal
Singh Bhatia and Others, (1975] 4 S.C.C 740. The respondents in that case E
were teachers in the former State of Pepsu which merged in the State of
Punjab on 1.11.1956. The teachers claimed revised scales of pay as. well as
the posts of Masters on the grounds that they had taken degrees in
Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent and that the Government letter
dated 23.7.1957 entitled them to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25%
of the vacancies. The High Court accepted the contention of the teachers F
and upheld their claim. The appeal filed by the State of J'unjab was
dismissed by this Court which agreed with the ~ew taken by the High
Court: After referring to the Government letter dated 23.7.57 in detail, this
Court referred also to Rules 7 and 10 of the Punjab Educational· Service,
Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 which provided method of recruitment G
and the entitlement to such scales of pay as may be authorized by the
Government from time to time. This Court held that the higher scale of
pay was effective either from the date when the teachers passed the
examination of Bachelor of Training or its equivalent or 1.5.57 whichever
J was later. Referring to a letter dated 7.11.58, this Court observed that the H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A teachers could not claim vacancies by promotion exceeding 25% and their
claim for appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not
merely their seniority but also their merit. The Court pointed out that while
the earlier letter dated July 23, 1957 fixed the scales of pay on the basis of
the academic qualification, the subsequent letter dated November 7, 1958
B recognized the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent of
25%.

(ii) Gurpal Tuli (1984] (Supp.) S.C.C. 716

C 27. The next case relating to Punjab schools was Gurpal Tuli and
Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1984] Supp S.C.C. 716. This Court
considered the Circular letter dated 29.7.67 issued by the State of Punjab
giving effect to the recommendations ·of the Kothari Commission from
1.11.1966 in respect of teachers in Government schools. Paragraph 2 of the
D Circular letter referred to lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools etc. and
it was specified that the number of posts in the Lecturers' Grade would be
1571 i.e. 742 posts for the existing school Lecturers and 829 additional posts
for other Masters/Mistresses with post graduate qualifications. The appel-
lants before this Court contended that they were employed as Masters and
Mistresses in Higher Secondary Schools run by the Punjab Government
E and possessed post graduate qualifications. They claimed that they were
entitled to either of the higher grades set forth in paragraph 2 of the said
letter dated 29.7.67 pertaining to lecturers. This Court negatived their
contention and observed : "From what has gone before it is clear that they
can legitimately claim the benefit of those grades only if they are appointed
F to the posts of Lecturer. And they do not dispute that they are not
incumbents of those posts". The appellants in that case placed reliance on
the judgment in State of Punjab and Another v. Kirpa/ Singh Bhatia and
Others, (1975] 4 S.C.C. 740 (Supra) but this Court held that it was of no
assistance to the appellants. The contention of the appellants that on the
G principle of "equal pay for equal work" they were entitled to the grades
applicable to the lecturers, this Court held that the grades specified in
Paragraph 2 of the circular letter dated 29.7.67 were applicable only to
those who specifically held the posts of lecturers. Thus the contention of
the teachers that they were entitled to the scales of pay applicable to
lecturers on their acquiring post graduate qualifications or the qualifica-
H tions prescribed for the post of lecturers was expressly negatived.
STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT (SRINIVASAN,J.] 81

(iii) Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers, Union [1988] 2 S.C.C. 407 A
28. The third ruling was Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers' Uniion
and Others Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab and Others Etc. Etc., (1988] 2 S.C.C.
407. The only controversy in that case was whether JBT teachers falling
under Category 'B' Group-II were not entitled to higher pay merely on
their acquiring higher educational qualifications of B.A. , B.T./B.A./B.Ed B
etc. but that gaining professional experience of JST/JAV was essenti<ll.
After construing the relevant clauses in the Government circular the Court
held that it was not necessary for the teachers to gain any experience of
training and it was sufficient if they got the qualifications of B.T. or B.Ed.
to be entitled to the higher scales of pay admissible to teachers in Category c
'B' Group-I with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring the
qualification. This Court had no occasion in that case to consider whether
the teachers were entitled to get the scales of pay applicable to lecturers
automatically on their acquiring the post graduate qualifications.

(iv) Baij Nath [1976) 8 SC.C. 516 D

29. The last of the cases chronologically cited before us was Baij Nath
and others v. State of Punjab, (1996] 8 SCC 516.

The appellants before this Court approached the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana seeking a direction to the State of Punjab and Direc- E
tor of Public Education to pay them according to the scale meant for
lecturers on their acquiring post graduate qualification in terms of Govern-
ment letter dated 23.7.57 read with Government letter dated 20.9.1979. The
Division Bench of the High Court negatived their prayer and they filed the
appeal in this Court after obtaining Special Leave. This Court allowed the F
appeal and directed the Government to pass an appropriate order relating
to the appellants within six weeks from the date of the judgment and make
available to them all consequential financial benefits· within eight weeks
thereafter. Learned counsel for the teachers placed reliance on that judg-
ment and contended that the prayer of the appellants in that case made in
the writ petition before the High Court was fully granted by this Court in G
appeal. Reliance was placed on Paragraph 7 of the judgment which is in
the following terms :

"But this is not all inasmuch as the letter of 23.7.1957, read with
that of 20.9.1979, thus permit higher pay scale for postgraduates; H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and that too fmm the date of acquisition of the same, as held by
this Court in Chaman Lal case. We would, therefore, state that
the teachers in the High Schools of Punjab, who acquire the
· postgraduate qualification, became entitled to such higher pay
from the date of acquiSition of the qualification, as· was con-
templated in the letter of 23.7.1957. It may be stated that the
B subject-matter of Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab, referred by Shri
Yadav for the respondents, is different and it has not stated
_anything contrary to what we have held."

30. On the other hand, relying on the very same passage quoted
C above, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contended that this Court
had only held that the teachers who had acquired the postgraduate
qualifications became entitled to higher pay which meant the higher pay
applicable to Masters. It was argued that this Court did not hold that the
appellants in that case were entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to
D lecturers on their acquiring the postgraduate qualifications.

31. A reading of the judgment as reported could not disclose the
correct position as to what was held in that case. Hence, we sent for the
records in that appeal namely, Civil Appeal No.4544/96. It is seen
therefrom that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, a decretal order
E was issued by this Court on the following terms:

"That the judgment and order dated the 29th May, 1992 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
No.4646 of 1992 be and is hereby set aside and in place thereof
F an order allowing C.W.P. No.4646 of 1992 and directing that an
appropriate order relating to the appellants herein shall be passed
by the respondents herein in the light of the above statement within
six weeks from this the 19th day of March 1996 and that conse-
quential financial benefits shall be made available to the appellants
within eight weeks thereafter, be and is hereby substituted;
G

I
2. That the parties herein shall bear their own costs of this appeal
in this Court."

32. Thereafter the appellants in the said appeal filed Contempt
H Petition Np. 196/97 for punishing the respondents therein for committing
STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT[SRINIVASAN,J.] 83

contempt as 1.espondents did not pay to the appellants salary on the pay A
scales applicable to lecturers. That petition for contempt was contested by
the Punjab State Government and the officials. It was stated in the counter-
affidavit that the appellants were entitled only to the higher pay scales
applicable to the Masters. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that
the judgment of this Court in the appeal granted only the higher pay scales B
applicable to Masters and did not grant to the appellants higher pay scales
applicable to the lecturers. That contention of the Punjab Government and
the officials in the contempt petition was accepted by. this Court and the
contempt petition was dismissed by order dated 14.7.1997. Thus it is clear
that in the above appeal also this Court did not hold that the teachers were
entitled to higher pay scales applicable to lecturers automatically on their
c
acquiring postgraduate qualifications or the qualifications prescribed for
the posts of lecturers.

33. Thus it is seen that even with reference to the teachers in the
State of Punjab higher pay scales applicable to lecturers were not granted. D
No ruling of this Court was cited before us holding that they would be
entitled to higher pay scales applicable to lecturers on their automatically
acquiring postgraduate qualifications. However, as stated earlier, we do not
decide that question in these cases as these relate to teachers in the State
of Haryana and not teachers in the State of Punjab. E
B. Cases relating to teachers in the State of Haryana.

(i) Kirpal Singh [1975] 4 S.C.C. 740

34. It is needless to refer to the earliest case namely, State of Punjab F
and Another v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia and Others, (supra) once again. As
stated earlier, the ruling in that case will undoubtedly apply to the teachers
. in the State of Haryana insofar as the interpretation of the circular dated
23.7.57 is concerned.

(ii) Chaman Lal[l987J 2 s.c.c. 113
G

35. The neXt case is of Chaman Lal and Others Etc. v. State of

1 Haryana Etc., [1987] 2 S.C.C. 113. The appellants in the appeal before this
Court were all trained graduates possessing B.Ed. or B.T. Degrees in
addition to BA. Degrees. They were teachers in the Government schools H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A in -the State of Haryana. They acquired the Degree qualifications sub-
sequent to their joining service. Some of them acquired such qualifications
before 5.9.1979 and some after that date. After the Circular dated 23.7.57
issued by the composite Punjab Government, the State of Haryana had
passed an order on 5.1.68 revising the scales of pay with effect from
1.12.1967. Thereafter, teachers who had acquired B.T. or B. Ed. Qualifica-
B lions were held entitled to the higher scales of pay since they acquired the
qualifications irrespective of the dates when they were adjusted against the
post of Masters. On September 5, 1979, the Government of Haryana issued
an order imposing conditions for the grant of Masters' grade to unadjusted
J.B.T. teachers who had acquired B.T./B.Ed. qualifications. The High
C Court interpreted the said order of the Government to mean that the
teachers who had acquired the B.T. or B. Ed. Qualification subsequent to
1.12.1967 and before 5.9.79 would be entitled to the higher grade but with
effect from 5.9.79 only and that those who acquired the qualification
subsequent to 5.9.79 were not entitled to the higher grade. According to
D the judgment of the High Court the order of the Government dated 5.1.68
did away with the principle of the 23.7.57 order that the teachers who
acquired B.T. or B. Ed. Qualification got the higher grade and that a
concession was shown in 1979 enabling the teachers who acquired such
qualifications between 1968 and 1979 to get the higher scale from 1979.
That view of the High Court was upset by this Court in the above case.
E This Court held that the order of the Government dated 5.1.1968 must be
read in the light of the order dated 23.7.1957 and the report of the Kothari
Commission which was accepted. This Court said that there could be no
doubt that the Government never intended to retract from the principle
that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B. Ed. Qualifications thereafter would
F be entitled to higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their
acquiring the qualifications. This Court also held that the order dated
5.9.79 was indeed superfluous. In that view, the appeal filed by the teachers
was allowed and the Court directed the Government and the officials to
give the higher grade admissible to Masters to all the ·teachers who had
acquired the B.T./B.Ed. qualification with effect from their acquiring the
G respective qualifications.

(iii) Wazir Singh [1995) Supp. 3 S.C.C. 697.

36. The next judgment of this Court in the order of Chronology is
H Wazir Singh !BT Teacher and Others v. State of Haryana through its
STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT[SRINIVASAN,J.] 85

Secretary, Education Department and Others, [1995) Supp 3 S.C.C. 697. In A
.· that case, the Court had to consider the policy instructions issued by the
Haryana Government on 9.3.1990 whereby it retracted from .the earlier
principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. or B. Ed. Degree would be
entitled to higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their
acquiring the qualifications. This Court held that the policy instructions
B
issued by the Government would operate prospectively and any teacher
acquiring the qualification of B.T/B.Ed would not get the higher pay scales
automatically on acquiring such qualifications. This Court also made clear
that those who had acquired such qualifications before 9.3.1990 would be
entitled to get the benefit of Para 2 of the Punjab Government Letter dated
23.7.57.
c
(iv) Ravi Bala [1997) 1 S.C.C. 267

37. In State of Haryana and Another v. Ravi Bala and others, (1997)
1 S.C.C. 267, the principle laid down in Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana D
(supra) was reiterated and the claim of teachers who had .acquired the
higher qualifications after 9.3.90 for higher scales of pay was rejected.

38. Thus it is seen, that there is no judgment of this Court holding
that teachers acquiring postgraduate qualifications or qualifications
prescribed for the post of le.cturers would automatically be entitled to E
scales of pay applicable to the lecturers .on acquiring such qualifications
without being appointed as lecturers in accordance with the rules.

(v) Ruling of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Bhagwan Dutt Sharma ILR 1988 (2) Pg. 246. p

39. In Bhagwan Dutt Sharma v. State of Haryana I.LR., (1988) 2
Punjab and Haryana P. 246 the question was whether the teachers who
acquired the B.T. or B. Ed. Qualification would be entitled to. the higher
sca,les of pay since they acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates
when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters. A Division Bench G
of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 7553176 negatived the claim of the
teachers. That writ petition was one of a bunch of cases including C.W.P.
}· 1220178 which had also been disposed of by the common judgment. The
petitioner in C.W.P. 1220178 took the matter in appeal to this Court and
succeeded. The judgment of this Court was in Chaman Lal and Others v. H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .•

A State of Haryana, (1987) 3 S.C.C. 113. We have already referred to thai
judgment in detail. The correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench
in C.W.P. 7553/76 was referred to a larger Bench by a Single Judge of that
Court probably before the matter was disposed of by this Court in Chaman
Lat's case (supra). The Full Bench after referring to Kirpal Singh's case
B (supra) and Chaman Lat's case (supra) held that in view of the decision
of the Supreme Court in Chaman Lat's case (supra) the reference was to
be answered in favour of the writ petitioners and accordingly the Full
Bench held that the writ petitioners were entitled to the Masters' pay from
the date they acquired the qualification.

c 40. Thus, the Full Bench had no occasion to consider the question
whether the teachers would be entitled to the scales of pay applicable to
the lecturers automatically on their acquiring postgraduate qualifications.
It cannot by any stretch of imagination b~ contended that the ratio of the
decision of the Full Bench was that those who had acquired postgraduate
D qualifications were automatically entitled to pay scales of lecturers. In the
judgment under appeal in Civil Appeal No. 4304/90, the High Court has
merely recorded that the parties' counsel agreed that the writ petition was
squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in Bhagwan Dutt
Shanna's case (supra) and ordered that there will be an order in terms of
E the ratio· given in the Full Bench case. According to the learned counsel
for the teachers, the said direction to pass an order in terms of the ratio
given in the Full Bench case would tantamount to upholding the claim of
the writ petitioners that they were entitled to higher scales of pay
applicable to lecturers. There is absolutely no merit in this contention. No
F such ratio can be discovered from the judgment of the Full Bench.

(vi) Civil Original Contempt Petition No.649189 on the file of the
High Court

41. In view of the above position, the claim of Kamal Singh Saharwat.
G who was the first writ petitioner before the High Court in C.W .P. 7122/88
that the concerned officials should be punished for contempt as he was not
paid his salary on the pay scales applicable to the· lecturers was
unsustainable. The contempt petition was on the face of it without any
merit and there was no justification for the High Court in issuing notice on
H the said petition for contempt. Of course the High Court had not come to
STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN,J.] 87

any decision or expressed any opinion in the contempt proceedings but the A
fact that the High Court issued notice to the respondents in the contempt
petition shows that the High Court considered that there was a prim a f acie
case for proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. No doubt the
respondents in the contempt petition could have appeared before the High
Court and filed a reply pointing out that there was no question of any
B
contempt as there was no disobedience of the order of the High Court in
as much as the ratio of the Full Bench did not entitle the writ petitioners
to higher pay scales applicable to lecturers. Instead, the State Government
and the Director of Public Instructions came to this Court with an appeal
against the order of the High Court in the writ petition. As the appeal has
been pending from 1990, no purpose will be served by taking a technical
c
view of the matter and directing the appellants to appear before the High
Court and contest the proceeding in contempt.

(vii) Conclusions
D
42. In the result, we have no hesitation to hold that the teachers are
not entitled to claim higher pay on the scales of pay applicable to lecturers
on their acquiring postgraduate qualification without being appointed as
lecturers. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana has categorically stated
that higher pay on the scales applicable to the Masters was already being E
paid to the teachers and that at any rate the Government has absolutely
no objection to pay the same if they were entitled thereto in accordance
with the law laid down by this Court. We have already referred to the fact
that the only person to whom higher pay on the scales applicable to the
lecturers was being paid was Kamal Singh Saharwat, the first petitioner in
C .. W.P. 7122/88 before the High Court. At the time of grant of leave, this F
Court passed an order in the stay petition that if the State ultimately
succeeds, it will be entitled to appropriate relief. Consequently, the State
Government, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4304/90 is entitled to recover
back from Kamal Singh Saharwat, the first respondent in the appeal
whatever has been paid over and above his entitlement. It will be open to G
the Government to take appropriate proceedings, therefor, if it decides to
recover the excess after such a long lapse of time. Similarly, the State
Government is entitled to recover from such other persons, if any, to whom
excess payments have been made. The proceedings in Contempt Petition,
namely, Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 649 of 1989 on the file of the H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A High Court of Punjab and Haryana requires to be dismissed. If it is still
pending on the file of the High Court, a formal order of dismissal may be
passed by the High Court pursuant to this judgment. Civil Appeal No.4304
of 1990 is allowed on the above terms.

43. S.L.P. Nos. 1005-06/98, 1002/98, 10080/95, 1000/98 and 1003-
B 04/98 as well as Civil Appeal No.2104/98 are dismissed.
44. The view taken by the High Court in the subsequent
contempt/execution proceedings is correct and consequently S.L.P Nos.
944-51/98 and 1008-09/98 are dismissed.
c 45. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

S.V.K. Appeals disposed of.