Holding

The Government's policy on selection‑grade computation and arrears is a valid executive decision not violative of Article 14, and teachers without higher qualifications are not entitled to higher pay scales.

Summary

The respondents, teachers in the Haryana Education Department, sought payment of salary in the selection‑grade pay‑scales, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court had granted. The Government issued an order (20 August 1996) stating that selection‑grade posts would be computed on the basis of total cadre strength, including temporary posts, and that arrears would be payable for the preceding 38 months. The Supreme Court examined whether this executive policy was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also considered whether teachers lacking higher qualifications (B.T. or B.Ed.) could claim higher pay scales. Relying on earlier judgments (State of Haryana v. Ravi Bala and Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana), the Court held that the Government’s policy is a valid executive decision and not violative of equality principles, and that teachers without the requisite qualifications are not entitled to higher grades. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, except for one specific appeal (C.A. No. 3267/97) which was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Government's decision to compute selection‑grade posts based on total strength and grant arrears for 38 months is arbitrary or violates Article 14.
Whether teachers who have not obtained higher qualifications (B.T. or B.Ed.) are entitled to higher pay scales.

Subjects

selection gradepay scalesteacherstemporary postsarrearsexecutive policyArticle 14equalityqualification

Judgment

T

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
RAI CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

APRIL 21, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Seivice Law :

Payscales-Parity i11 salary i11 the selectio11 grade payscales-Held :
C Since Govemme11t itself has accepted to compute the selection grade wherever
available prior to 1.1.86 a11d to work it out 011 the basis of the total strength
of the cadre, with co11seque11tial benefits, 110 i11teiference is called f or-f'ay-
ment of an-ears-From which date to be paid, being a11 executive policy, is
not violative of ATt, J4-Co11stitutio11 of India, Art, 14.

D Teachers who have not acquired higher qualificatio11s-Held not en-
titled to higher payscales.

State of Harylllla & A11r. v. Ravi Bala & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 267 and
Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 697, relied on.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3236-
3274 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.93, 2.4.92, 26.5.94, 10.8.94,
28.3.94, 6.3.95, 15.5.95, 8.11.93, 6.3.95, 2.11.93, 5.8.93, 2.4.92, 5.8.93 of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 13493/91, 486, 521/91,
F 8709/93, 16884/91, 910/94, 2143/93, 2828/94, 3365/94, 6101/94, 14403-04,
15092/93, 8705, 10341, 9800/93, 2460, 1387, 6965, 6986/94, 13683, 6923/93,
6353/94, 15523/93, 281/94, 14046/93, 16146, 16560/94, 3946/95, 16891/94,
3945/95, 4231/95, 6927/93, 1112, 2896/95, 15630/94, 16879/91, 6569, 6232/93.

G Jasbir Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

Pankaj Kalra, Ranbir Yadav, Pardeep Gupta, K.K. Gupta, A.C.
Mahimkar, M.S. Dahiya, A.K. Goel, Mrs. Sheel Goel and Goodwill In-
deevar for the Respondents.

H The following Order of the Court was delivered :
894
STATE v. R.C. JAIN 895

Substitution allowed. A
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order
dated 2.11.1993 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in CWP No.
13493/91 & batch. It is not necessary to narrate all the factual details. B
Suffice it to state that the respondents claim payment of salary in the
selection grade pay-scales which the High Court has granted them. While
we have taken the matter for final disposal, Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned
counsel for the respondent, has brought to our notice the order issued by
the Government on August 20, 1996 signed by the joint Secretary C
(Finance), for Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government,
Haryana, Finance Department which reads as under :

"I am directed to invite your attention to the subject noted above
and to say that prior to 1.4. 79 the Selection Grade to Group C &
D Category employees was admissible on the basis of the number D
of permanent posts in a particular cadre and later on, till 1.1.86,
the date on which this practice was altogether abolished, for
determining the number of the Selection Grade posts, the tem-
porary posts in existence for the preceding three years were taken
into account. E
CWP. No. 2143 of 1994 of 11255 of 1995 were filed in the High
Court by some teachers of the Education Department and while
disposing these off, Hon'ble High Court directed to grant the
selection grade on the basis of total strength, including permanent
and temporary posts, with all consequential benefits, to the F
petitioners. Thus the employees of the Education Department have
already been granted this benefit as per the judgment.

The Government has, therefore, decided that the selection
grade wherever available prior to 1.1.86 may be worked out on the G
basis of total strength including permanent and temporary posts
and all consequential benefits including arrears of 38 months
preceding the date of such decision, be allowed to eligible

-
employees."

In view of the above direction, we are of the view that since the H

/
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A Government itself has accepted to compute the selection grade wherever
available prior to 1.1.86 and to work it out on the basis of the total strength
of the cadre including permanent and temporary posts with consequential
benefits including arrears for 38 months preceding the date of the decision,
i.e., dated 20.8.1996, these cases need no interference.

B Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel has stated that fixation of 38
months for payment of arrears is arbitrary. We find no force in the
contention. It is for the Government to decide as a part of the executive
policy as to from which date the arrears would be granted to the
employees. The matter being executive policy in character, we do not think
C that the decision taken by them is arbitrary violating Article 14 of the
Constitution.

In view of the above order, we think that there is nothing for this
Court to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
D
CA No. 3267197@ S.L.P. (C) No. 11705/95

Though the respondents have been served, none is appearing either
in person or through counsel. The controversy raised in this case is. covered
E by the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ravi Bala &
Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 267. In paragraph 4, this Court, following the decision
in Wazir Singh v. State of Hmyana, (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 697 has held that
such of the teachers w~o have obtained the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be
entitled to higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their
acquiring that qualification. Therefore, they are not entitled to higher
F scales of pay prior to the date of acquiring qualifications.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No. costs.

G.N. C.A. No. 3236 to 3266 and
3268 to 3274/97 dismissed.

C.A. No. 3267/97 allowed.