STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusHEM LATA GUPTA & ORS.

                       [2010) 1 S.C.R. 22


A                STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                                v.
                  HEM LATA GUPTA & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 4714 of 2006)
                       JANUARY 5, 2010
B
         [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]

        Service Law:

c       Punjab Education Service Class-Ill (School Cadre)
    Rules, 1955:

       r.10 - Government of Punjab letter dated 1.9.1960 -
  Providing for advance increments to Masters on acquiring
  post graduate qualification - Benefit - Benefit under letter
D dated 1.9.1960 claimed by teachers faffing in State of
  Haryana on its formation - Held: Teachers employed under
  Government of Haryana could claim the benefit in terms of
  the policy decisions taken by Government of undivided Punjab
  only till the revision of their pay scales, which were made
E effective from 1. 12. 1967, and not thereafter.
      The respondents, employed as teachers under the
  Government of Haryana, claimed advance increments in
  terms of Punjab Government to Memo dated 1.9.1960. The
F Director of Secondary Education, Haryana rejected their
  claim on the premise that in terms of Rule.10 of the Punjab
  Education Service Class-Ill (School Cadre) Rules, 1955,
  the pay scales of the teachers were subject to variation
  from time to time, and since the State of Haryana revised
G the pay scales of various categories of teaches w.e.f.
  1.12.1967, Memo dated 1.9.1960 stood superseded. He
  also observed that higher start of pay with advance
  increments for post graduate qualification was provided
  only to Masters/Mistresses and not to other categories of
H                              22
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                23
                  & ORS.
teachers. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and         A
directed that the respondents be given advance
increments in terms of the Punjab Government Memo
dated 1.9.1960 and the letter dated 5.1.1968 of the
Government of Haryana. Aggrieved, the State of Haryana
filed the appeals.                                              B

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1.1. The teachers employed under the
Government of Haryana could claim benefit of the higher
pay scales, advance increments etc. in terms of the policy      C
decisions taken by the Government of undivided Punjab
and instructions issued by it only till the revision of their
pay scales, which were made effective from 1.12.1967,
and not thereafter. [Para 14] [39-E-F]
                                                                D
     1.2. The question of revision of pay scales of the
teachers employed under the Government of Haryana
was considered by the Education Commission which is
also     known     as    Kothari Commission. The
recommendations made by that Commission were E
accepted by the President of India and were implemented
by the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967.
After revision of the pay scales of various categories of
teachers, the Government of Haryana issued instructions
vide letters dated 26.7.1972, 26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for F
grant of monetary benefits in the form of personal pay to
those Government .servants who improved their
qualifications by undertaking further studies within the
country and abroad. Further, by letter No. 4718-2GS-11-77/
17173 dated 20.6.1977, all the existing instructions were
superseded and fresh instructions were issued on the G
subject. However, the decisions contained in letter dated
20.6.1977 and other related communications were
withdrawn by the State Government by letter dated
20.12.1982. [Para 8 to 10] [33-B-C; 35-A-B; 36-F-G]
                                                                H
    24     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A        1.3. The High Court erred in accepting the plea of the
    respondents that revision of the pay scales of teachers
    with effect from 1.12.1967 did not result in automatic
    supersession of the existing policy decisions. All the
    financial benefits including increments admissible to the
B   teachers in terms of extant policy decisions must have
    been taken into consideration by Kothari Commission
    while recommending grant of revised pay scales. If this
    was not so, there could be no warrant for separately
    giving one advance increment to first and second class
c   graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay
    scales of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and
    Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of the cadre) were prescribed;
    similarly, there was no justification to give one advance
    increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional
    training; equally, there was no occasion for the State
0
    Government to give additional benefit by way of
    increments in the form of personal pay to the employees
    on improving qualifications after joining Govt. service.
    This being the position, the High Court was not right in
E   holding that the decision taken by the President of India
    to accept the recommendations of Kothari Commission
    for revision of the pay scales of Government teachers and
    grant of revised pay scales to them with effect from
    1.12.1967 did not have the effect of superseding the
    policy contained in letter dated 1.9.1960. [Para 13] [38-G-
F   H; 39-A-D]

      1.4. The doubts and confusion created due to the
  judgment in Chaman Lal's case* on the entitlement of the
  teachers to automatically get particular pay scale
G prescribed for higher post have been clarified by the
  judgments in Wazir Singh's case** and Kamal Singh
  Saharawat's case and in view of the latter decisions, the
  respondents' claim for grant of advance increments in
  terms of letter dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government
H of Punjab cannot be accepted. [Para 21] [47-F-G]
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA               25
                  &ORS.
   **Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 ( 4 ) Suppl. A
 SCR 138   =1995 Supp. (3) SCC 697; State of Haryana v.
Kamal Singh Saharawat 1999 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 67 = (1999)
8 sec 44, relied on.

     *Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana 1987 ( 2 ) SCR 923 = B
  (1987) 3 SCC 113; State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia
1976 ( 1 ) SCR 529 = (1975) 4 SCC 740; Gurpal Tuli v. State
of Punjab 1984 Supp SCC 716; Punjab Higher Qualified
Teachers' Union v. State of Punjab (1988) 2 SCC 407; Baij
Nath v. State of Punjab (1996) 8 SCC 516; State of Haryana C
v. Ravi Bala (1997) 1 SCC 267, referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:

    1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 138 relied on           Para 4

    1976 (1) SCR 529        referred to         Para 15       D
    1987 (2) SCR 923        referred to         Para 16

    1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 67 relied on            Para 19

    1984 Supp sec 716       referred to         Para 20       E
    (1988) 2 sec 407        referred to         Para 20

    (1996) 8 sec 516        referred to         Para 20

    (1997) 1 sec 261        referred to         Para 20
                                                              F
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4714 of 2006.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 8.1.2001 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 17842 G
of 1998.

                          WITH

C.A. Nos. 4715, 4716, 4717, 4719, 4720, 4721 of 2006.

    P.N. Mishra, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Appellants.        H
    26      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A       Shailendra Bhardwaj. Dr. Ramesh K. Haritash, Dr. Kailash
    Chand, Uma Datta, Sanjay Kapur, D. Mahesh Babu, Tarun
    Gupta, S. Janani, Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, Balbir Singh Gupta,
    R.C. Kaushik, Anjani Aiyagari, S.K. Sabharwal for the
    Respondents.
B
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. These appeals are directed against
  the orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the
  alleged denial of advance increments to the writ petitioners
C (respondents herein) has been declared illegal and the
  appellants have been directed to grant them increments in terms
  of the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide
  Memo No. 6462-ED-11(2)60/32640 dated 1.9.1960 and the
  Government of Haryana vide letter No.152-Edu-11-69/540 dated
D 5.1.1968.

       2. The respondents joined service as teachers in different
  categories i.e., Lecturers, Masters/Mistresses, Language
  Teachers and Physical Training Instructors either in the
E undivided State of Punjab or the newly formed State of Haryana,
  which came into being with effect from 1.11.1966. Some of the
  respondents possessed post-graduate qualifications at the time
  of entry in the service while others claim to have acquired such
  qualifications after joining the service. Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and
  others filed Writ Petition No. 18638/1997 for issue of a
F mandamus to the concerned authorities of the Government of
  Haryana to give them benefit of 213 advance increments from
  the date of acquiring post-graduate qualifications in terms of
  Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab. The
  same was disposed of by the High Court with a direction that
G representation dated 1.10.1997 submitted by the writ-petitioners
  be decided by the competent authority by passing a reasoned
  order. In compliance of the Court's directive, the Director of
  Secondary Education, Haryana (for short, 'the Director'), passed
  order dated 30.7.1998 whereby he rejected the claim of the
H respondents on the ground that after fixation of their pay in the
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                  27
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
revised pay scales in terms of the policy contained in letter A
dated 5.1.1968 of the Government of Haryana, the teachers are
not entitled to advance increments in terms of Memo dated
1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab. The Director also
observed that the instructions issued by the Government of
Punjab we,re applicable only to t.he Masters working in the B
grade of Rs.110/250 and were not applicable to other teachers
like Junior Basic Teachers, Language Teachers, Art and Craft
Teachers, Physical Training Instructors, Headmasters and
Lecturers and, therefore, they cannot claim advance increments
in terms of those instructions. For the sake of reference, the c
relevant portions of order dated 30.7.1998 are extracted
below:-

     I.    'That the petitioners were the members of Punjab
           Educational Service Class-Ill (School Cadre) Rules,
           1955 and their conditions of service were governed      D
           by the provisions of the said rules. The pay has
           been defined in para 10 of the said rules as under:

           10. Pay: Members of the service will be entitled to
           such scale of pay as may be authorized by the Govt.     E
           from time to time.

           This rule clearly contemplates that members of the
           service like the petitioners will be entitled to such
           scale of pay as authorized by Govt. from time to
           time, meaning thereby, as soon as the pay scales        F
           of the employees are revised, the present pay scale
           attached with the post will be of no consequence.

     II.   That as per rule 10 of the said service rules the
           petitioners are entitled to such scales of pay as G
           authorized by the govt. from time to time. In
           Appendix A of the said rules the pay scales of
           Rs.110/250 with a higher start of 215 advance
           increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualifications
           which was enforced at the time of framing of the said H
    28   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A           service rules was only provided for the post of
            Masters/Mistresses and not to other categories of
           teachers. The said scale of pay remained operative
            upto 30.11.1967 because after formation of the
            State of Haryana, the State Govt. vide letter dated
B           5.1.1968 had further revised the pay scale of the
           Masters/Mistresses from Rs.110/250 to 220/400
           w.e.f. 1.12.1967. and by virtue of the letter dated
           5.1.1968 the earlier circulars regarding revision of
           pay scales issued by the either Governments stood
c          automatically superseded. Meaning thereby
           Masters/Mistresses who were earlier made eligible
           for the grant of benefit of advance increments in
           terms of the pay scales shown in Appendix A of the
           service rules 1955 and further supplemented as per
           joint Punjab Govt. letter No. 6382-Edu.lll (2) 60/
D
           32640 dated 1.9.1960 become disentitled to the
           benefit of advance increments on acquiring Post
           Graduation qualifications after having been given
           revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967. In other words
           such Masters/Mistresses who got the Post
E          Graduation qualification on or after 1.12.1967 and
           were appointed in the service or after 1.12.1967
           are not eligible to get the benefit of higher start of
           2/3 increments as such provisions did not exist in
           the Govt. letter dated 5.1.68 under which the grades
F          were revised w.e.f. 1.12.1967. By virtue of the
           statutory sanction in rule 10 of the Punjab
           Educational Service Class-Ill (School Cadre) Rules,
           1955 vide which the pay scales were subject to
           variation from time to time, the petitioners are not
G          entitled to the advance increments as after revision
           of pay scales w.e.f. 1.12.1967 the pay scales
           shown in Appendix A in the said service rules 1965
           and letter dated 23. 7.57 did not remain in existence
           as the petitioners have either been appointed after
H          1.12.67 or acquired the M.A./M.Sc. qualifications
  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                    29
            & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
             after 1.12.67.                                           A

      Ill.   )()()()()()()()()(


      IV.    That after 1.12.67, the State Govt. had further
             revised the scales of pay of its employees including
             the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.79 and 1.1.86 by framing      B
             rules under the proviso of Article 309 of the
             Constitution of India and these rules are known as
             Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987
             published on 29.2.80 and 29.4.87 respectively. At
             this time also as provision of grant of 213 advance      c
             increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification
             existed and as such the petitioners are not entitled
             to the benefit of advance increments on acquiring
             of M.A./M.Sc. qualification existed and as such the
             petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of advance   D
             increments on acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification.

      V.     xxx     )()()( )()()(


      VI.    That further mere look of the provisions of
             Appendix-A of the said rules 1955 and later on E
             supplemented vide Punjab Govt., letter No.6482-
             Edu.Ill (2) 60/32640 dated 1.9.1960 would show
             that the benefit of 213 advance increments was only
             given to the category of Masters/Mistresses
             working in the grade of Rs.110/250 and not to the F
             other categories of teachers like J.B.T., Maths,
             Sanskrit, Punjabi, Art & Craft teachers, P.T.1.,
             Headmasters and Lecturers. Thus those petitioners
             who are working/appointed against the said posts
             are also-not entitled to 213 advance increments on G
             acquiring of M.A./M.Sc. qualification."

     3. Respondents Smt. Hem Lata Gupta and 11 others
challenged the aforementioned order in C.W.P. No. 17842/
1998. They pleaded that in view of the instructions issued by         H
    30      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   the Government of Punjab vide Memo dated 1.9.1960, they are
    entitled to advance increments as of right and fixation of their
    pay in the revised pay scales with effect from 1.12.1967 cannot
    be made a ground for denying them the benefit of advance
    increments. In the counter affidavit filed before the High Court,
B   the appellants pleaded that the respondents are not entitled to
    advance increments in terms of the instructions issued by the
    Government of Punjab because the same will be deemed to
    have been superseded with the revision of pay scales of
    various categories of teachers with effect from 1.12.1967.
c        4. By an order dated 8.1.2001, the Division Bench of the
    High Court allowed the writ petition and issued direction, which
    is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 4714/2006. The Division
    Bench relied upon the judgments of this Court in Wazir Singh
    v. State of Haryana 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 697, State of Haryana
D   v. Harbans Lal (2002) 10 SCC 125 and held that even though
    pay scales of the teaches were revised by the Government of
    Haryana, the earlier instructions were not superseded and, as
    such, the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit of advance
    increments in terms of the policy decision contained in
E   Government of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960. The Division
    Bench also noted that teachers employed in Kurukshetra
    District have been allowed personal pay equal to one increment
    in their respective grades for a period of 5 years and held that
    other teachers cannot be discriminated. The writ petitions filed
F   by other respondents were likewise allowed and similar
    direction was issued for grant of advance increments to them.

         5. Shri P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for
    the appellants argued that as a result of revision of pay scales
G   of the teachers with effect from 1.12.1967, the policy contained
    m Government of Punjab Memo dated 1.9.1960 will be deemed
    to have been superseded and the High Court committed
    serious error by relying upon the said memo for issuing a
    mandamus for grant of advance increments to the respondents.
    Shri Misra referred to letters dated 5.1.1968, 20.6.1977 and
H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                  31
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
20.12.1982 issued by the Government of Haryana and argued A
that once the State Government took a conscious decision to
revise the pay scales of teachers and grant them increments
on fulfillment of the specified conditions, the instructions issued
by the Government of Punjab could not be invoked by the
respondents for claiming benefit of advance increments. On the B
other hand, Shri Balbir Singh Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents argued that on acquiring higher qualifications, his
clients became entitled to advance increments in terms of
Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab and
they cannot be deprived. of that right simply because the        c
Government of Haryana decided to revise the pay scales with
effect from 1.12.1967.

      6. We have considered the respective submissions. In
 exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Punjab D
framed the Punjab Educational Service Class-Ill (School
Cadre) Rules, 1955 (for short, "the 1955 Rules") for regulating
 recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to
the Punjab Educational State Service, Class 111, School Cadre ..
The same were notified on 30.5.1957. Rule 10 of the 1955 E
Rules lays down that members of the service will be entitled to
such scale of pay as may be authorized by the Government
from time to time. The scales of pay of different categories of
teachers, which were in force at the relevant time, were
specified in Appendix 'A' annexed to the 1955 Rules. For the F
post of Headmasters, the prescribed pay scale was Rs.250-
10-350. For the post of Masters, the prescribed pay scale was
Rs.250-10-300. For certain other categories of teachers, the
pay scale was Rs.110-8-190/10-250 with a start of Rs.126 to
those having the qualification of M.A./M.Sc./M.Ed. with third G
division and Rs.150 to those possessing qualification of M.A./
M.Sc./M.Ed. with second or first division. After two months, the
Government of Punjab issued circular dated 23. 7.1957 for
revision of the scales of pay of certain posts including those of
                                                                 H
    32         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   teachers. This was followed by Memo dated 1.9.1960 vide
    which the State Government sanctioned grant of advance
    increments to the Masters on their acquiring postgraduate
    qualifications. The relevant portions of Memo dated 1.9.1960
    which constitutes the foundation of the respondents' claim for
B   advance increments are reproduced below:

         "Sanction of the Government of Punjab is accorded to the
         grant of advance increments to the Masters working in the
         Punjab Education Department, who improve/have
         improved their educational qualifications in the manner
c        detailed below:-

         Category of       Nature of improved      Extent of advance
         personnel         qualifications          increments
D
         Masters           (110-8-190/10-250)      2 increments
                           MA/MSc.JM. Ed.
                           (3rd Division)

                           MA/M.Sc./M.Ed.          3 increments
E
                           (1sU2nd Division)

          2.     The advantage will be enjoyed only once and not
                 for doing any subsequent M.A. It will not be
                 available to those who were given higher start of
F                entry for being MAIM.Sc.JM.Ed.

          3.     These orders will take effect from the date of issue.

         The original date of increments shall remain unchanged
         and the persons concerned should be allowed to retain
G        their old dates of increments."

        7. Though not directly relevant to the issue raised in these
  appeals, we may make a mention of circular letter No. 961-
  4GS-62/5593 dated 16.2.1962 (this circular finds a mention in
H letter dated 20.12.1982 issued by the Government of Haryana),
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                     33
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
vide which the Government of Punjab decided to give advance         A
increments/rapid promotions to officers going abroad to
improve their qualifications. This was done with a view to ensure
that the officers who improve their qualifications in foreign
countries continue to serve the State.
                                                                    B
     8. The question of revision of pay scales of the teachers
employed under the Government of Haryana was considered
by the Education Commission which is also known as Kothari
Commission. The recommendations made by that Commission
were accepted by the President of India and were implemented        C
by the State Government with effect from 1.12.1967. For this
purpose, instructions were issued vide letter No. 152-Edu-11-69/
540 dated 5.1.1968, the relevant paragraphs whereof are
reproduced below:

           I am directed to say that the matter concerning the      D
    revision of scales of pay of teaching personnel working in
    Govt. Schools in Haryana has been engaging the attention
    of Govt. for sometime past. After careful consideration, the
    President of India is pleased to accept the
    recommendations of the Education Commission popularly           E
    known "KOTHARI COMMISSION" and revise the scale of
    pay of Govt. teachers w.e.f. 1st December 1967 in the
    following manner:-

    Sr.No. Category of teachers           Revised grade
                                                                    F
    1.       J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. & V        i) Rs .125-5-
                                             150/5-250

            Teacher, Drawing Master,         (for 85% of the
            Tailoring Mistresses, Art        cadre)                 G
            & Craft teachers, Domestic       ii) Rs.250-10-
            Mistresses & Shastries           300
                                             (for 15% of the
                                             Cadre)
                                                                    H
    34           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] 1 S.C.R.


A        N.B. The untrained Teachers with Higher Secondary
         Matriculation qualifications will draw the starting of Rs.100/
         - mensum and they will be integrated in the regular pay of
         scales only after they obtain necessary profession
         qualification.
B
         2.         Masters/Mistresses            i) Rs.220-8-
                    (Trained Graduates)           300-10-400
                                                  (for 85% of the
                                                  cadre)
                                                  ii) Rs.400-20-500
c                                                 (for 15% of the
                                                  cadre)

          N.B. (I) The 1st & 2nd class graduates will be entitled to
               draw one advance increment in addition.
D
          (ii)     The Untrained graduates will be allowed the starting
                   salary of Rs.200/- per mensum and will be entitled
                   for the regular scales of pay only after attaining the
                   prescribed professional training.
E        3. Lecturers (Post Graduates)               i) Rs.300-25
                                                     450-25-600
                                                     (For 1st & 2nd
                                                     class M.A.'s and
                                                     M.Ed)
F                                                    ii) Rs.250-25-
                                                     450/25-550
                                                     (For 3rd class
                                                     M.A.'s and
                                                     M.Sc's)
G
          N.B. The Lecturers will be given one advance increment
               as soon as they attain professional training.

                   xxx xxx        XXX.'

H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                      35
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
      9. After revision of the pay scales of various categories of    A
teachers, the Government of Haryana issued instructions vide
letters dated 26.7.1972, 26.11.1974 and 17.7.1975 for grant
of monetary benefits in the form of personal pay to those
Government servants who improved their qualifications by
undertaking further studies within the country and abroad. In         8
1977, all the existing instructions were superseded and fresh
instructions were issued on the subject vide letter No. 4718-
2GS-ll-77/17173 dated 20.6.1977, the relevant portions of
which are reproduced below:

     "Subject: Grant of personal pay to Govt. servants who            C
     improve their qualifications by further study within the
     country and abroad.

     Sir,
                                                                      D
            I am directed to refer to the instructions contained in
    this Department's letter No. 4857-GSll-72/28344 dated
    26.9.1972, letter No. 6452-2GSll-74/28173 dated
    26.11.197 4 and letter No. 434-2GS-ll 75/21469 dated
    17. 7 .1975 on the subject noted above and to say that the        E
    Government has further considered the matter and in
    supersession of the aforesaid instructions, taken the
    following decisions:-

     1. Personal pay shall be granted to all employees, who
     improve their qualifications after joining Govt. service, if the F
   . qualifications so acquired from a recognized University is/
     are higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed for
     the post on which they were recruited at the time of entry
     into Govt. Service, in accordance with the scales and
     conditions laid down in the succeeding paragraphs/sub- G
     paragraphs:-

    (i) Personal pay admissible for acquiring each of the
    following qualifications shall be equal to the amount of
                                                                      H
    36      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 1 S.C.R.


A        increment(s) mentioned against each qualifications:-

         (a) Diploma of at least one year duration One increment
         (b) Law degree or post graduate Two increments
       (c) Doctorate or Post Doctorate Four increments
B   qualification
         Provided that the maximum benefit will not exceed the
         equivalent of four increments.
         (ii) Govt. employees who have acquired the aforesaid
c        qualifications after 26.9.1972 (i.e. whose result as
         declared on or after the said date) shall be eligible for the
         benefit of personal pay with effect from the date of
         declaration of the result of the examination concerned and
         those who had improved their educational qualifications
D        before 26.9.1972 i.e. whose result was declared before
         the said date shall be eligible for the benefit of personal
         pay with effect from the date of issue of these instructions.
         In either of the two type of cases, thereto of increment for
         the purpose of calculating the amount of personal pay shall
E        be taken to be the which was last drawn prior to the date
         of eligibility.
         (iii) No benefit shall not be given for such of these
         qualifications as had already been acquired by the Govt.
         employee before joining Govt. service."
F
        10. The decisions contained in letter dated 20.6.1977 and
    other related communications were withdrawn by the State
    Government vide letter dated 20.12.1982, which reads ihus:
         "No.14/38/82-2GS-ll
G
         From

                The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.


H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                   37
          & ORS: [GS. SINGHVI, J.] .
  To                                                              A

    1.    All Heads of Departments, the Commissioners,
          Ambala and Hissar Divisions, all Deputy •
          Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)
          in Haryana                                       B

   2.    The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court,
         Chandigarh

          Dated, Chandigarh, the 20th December, 1982
                                                                  c
   Subject:    Grant of personal pay to Government servants
               who improve their qualifications by further
               study within the country and abroad.

  Sir,
                                                                  D
          I am directed to refer to the instruction contained in
   Punjab Government No.961-4GS-62/5593, dated the 16th
   February, 1962, Haryana Government letter No.4718-2GS-
   ll-77/17173, dated the 20th June, 1977, letter No.14/3/78-
  GS-ll dated 26.7.78 and letter No. of even number dated
  the 23rd October, 1978 and letter No.14/18/78-GS-ll, dated E
  the 16th July, 1979, on the subject noted above and to say
  that the matter concerning grant of advance increments as
  personal pay to Government employees who improve their
  academic qualifications while in service has been under
  the consideration of the Government for some time. It has F
  now been decided to discontinue the practice of giving
  advance increments to Government employees for
  acquiring higher qualifications and all the instructions
  issued on the subject as referred to above should be
  treated as withdrawn with immediate effect.                      G
                                                  Yours faithfully
                                                             Sd/-
                               Joint Secretary General Admn.
                For Chief Secretary to Government Haryana"
                                                                   H
    38      SUPREME .C80RT REPORTS               [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A        11. Having noticed the factual matrix of the case and
    various instructions issued by the Governments of Punjab and
    Haryana, we shall now consider whether the direction given by
    the High Court for grant of advance increments to the
    respondents from the date of acquiring postgraduate
B   qualifications is legally correct and justified.

          12. A reading of rule 10 of the 1955 Rules and Appendix-
    A appended thereto shows that the pay scales prescribed for
    different categories of teachers prior to 30.5.1957 were made
    part of the Rules. After two years, the Government of Punjab
C   issued instructions vide letter dated 23.7.1957 for grant of
    higher scales of pay to the teachers from the date of acquiring
    higher qualifications. By Memo dated 1.9.1960, sanction was
    accorded for grant of 2/3 advance increments to the Masters
    from the date of improving their educational qualifications.
D   However, it was made clear that the advantage of advance
    increments will not be available to those who were given higher
    start on account of possessing the postgraduate qualifications.
    This stipulation was incorporated in Memo dated 1.9.1960
    because some of the teachers who possessed postgraduate
E   qualifications were already given the benefit of additional
    increments by being allowed higher start in the prescribed pay
    scale. These instructions could be treated as having been
    issued by the Government of Punjab under rule 1Oof the 1955
    Rules. The teachers employed under the Government of 1
F   Haryana got benefit of the policy decisions contained in letter
    dated 23. 7.1957 and Memo dated 1.9.1960 till their pay scales
    were revised vide letter dated 5.1.1968.

       13. The argument of the respondents, which found favour
G with the High Court that revision of the pay scales of teachers
  with effect from 1.12.1967 did not result in automatic
  supersession of the existing policy decisions sounds attractive
  in the first blush, but, on a deeper consideration, we are
  convinced that the said argument is fallacious and should have
H been rejected by the High Court . All the financial benefits
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                       39
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
including increments admissible to the teachers in terms of            A
extant policy decisions must have been taken into consideration
by Kothari Commission while recommending grant of revised
pay scales. If this was not so, there could be no warrant for
separately giving one advance increment to first and second
91ass graduate Masters/Mistresses for whom revised pay                 B
scales of Rs.220-8-300-10-400 (for 85% of the cadre) and
Rs.400-20-500 (for 15% of the cadre) were prescribed.
Similarly, there was no justification to give one advance
increment to the Lecturers on their attaining professional
training. Equally, there was no occasion for the State                 c
Government to give additional benefit by way of increments in
the form of personal pay to the employees on improving
qualifications after joining Govt. service. This being the position,
we are convinced that the High Court was not right in holding
that the decision taken by the President of India to accept the
                                                                       0
recommendations of Kothari Commission for revision of the
pay scales of Government teachers and grant of revised pay
scales to them with effect from 1.12.1967 did not have the effect
of superseding the policy contained in Memo dated 1.9.1960.

     14. In our view, the teachers employed under the                  E
Government of Haryana could claim benefit of the higher pay
scales, advance increments etc. in terms of the policy decisions
taken by the Government of undivided Punjab and instructions
issued by it only till the revision of their pay scales, which were
made effective from 1.12.1967 and not thereafter.                      F

     15. At this stage, we may usefully notice some .of the
judgments. In State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (1975) 4
sec 740, this Court was called upon to consider whether
teachers were entitled to higher pay scales in terms of the policy     G
contained in letter dated 23.7.1957. On behalf of the State of
Punjab, it was argued that the policy decision taken by the
Gover.nment was not intended to give benefit of higher scales
of pay to all the teachers who acquired higher qualifications and
before claiming higher post, the concerned teachers were
                                                                       H
     40      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A required to be selected by the Board. While rejecting the
  argument, this court held as under:

          "The High Court said that the contention of the State that
          the teachers could not be considered for promotion unless
          they satisfied the condition of subject combination namely,
B
          that if they were ordinary graduates with training
          qualifications, they must have studied two out of the four
          subjects, namely. History, Geography, Economics and
          Political Science is not supported by the letter dated
          November 7, 1958. The High Court rightly said that the
c         letter does not speak of any limitation of subject
          combination for promotion.

          Some of the teachers were from time to time promoted to
          the posts of masters but never continuously beyond a
D         period of six months. After completion of six months, there
          was a break to avoid continuity in service for the posts of
          masters beyond six months. The State contended that the
          teachers could not be considered for promotion unless the
          Board were satisfied that the teachers if ordinary
E         graduates with training qualifications must have also
          studied two out of four subjects of History, Geography,
          Economics and Political Science. The teachers on the
          other hand contended that once the State Government had
          taken a decision as embodied in the letter dated
F         November 7, 1958, the policy of not allowing the teachers
          to continue beyond six months on temporary basis was
          nullifying the letter and spirit of the decision of the letter
          dated November 7, 1958. The teachers also contended
          that the promotion of teachers to masters is completely
G.        independent of any consideration like the combination of
          subjects. The High Court rightiy held that letter dated
          November 7, 1958 was subject only to two limitations. One
          was that teachers could not claim more than one-fourth of
          the vacancies of the posts of masters and the other was
          that the claim by way of promotion would be considered
H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                41
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.J
     by the appointing authority on the basis of seniority-cum- A
     merit. The High Court rightly held that the letter dated
     November 7, 1958 was not subject to the condition of
     subjects combination being fulfilled. There are three
     categories of teachers - Science Masters, Mathematics
     Masters and Social Studies Masters. No condition of B
     combination of subjects can be read into the letter of
     November 7, 1958."

       16. In Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) 3 $CC 113,
 this Court recognized the entitlement of the teachers to get C
 higher scales of pay from the date of acquiring higher
 qualifications in terms of the policy contained in letter dated
 23. 7.1957 issued by the Government of Punjab. The plea of the
 State Government that those teachers who acquired B.T. or B.
 Ed. after 1.12.1967 i.e. the date on which the 1968 order came
into force, and before 5.9.1979, would be entitled to higher D
grade only with effect from 5.9.1979 and those who acquired
higher qualification after 5.9.1979 would not be entitled to the
higher grade was negatived only on the ground that 1968 order
had not been brought to the notice of the Court in State of
Punjab v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia (supra). This is evident from the E
following portion of paragraph 2 of the judgment:

     According to the judgment of the High Court under appeal,
    the 1968 order did away with the principle of the 1957
    order that teachers acquired BT or BEd qualification F
    should get the higher grade and that a concession was
    shown in 1979 enabling the teachers who acquired the BT
    or BEd qualification between 1968 and 1979 to get the
    higher scale from 1979. In our opinion this is plainly to
    ignore all the events that took place between 1957 and G
    1980. The principle that pay should be linked to
    qualification was accepted by the Punjab Government in
    1957 and when Kirpal Singh Bhatia case1 was argued i11
    the High Court and in the Supreme Court there was riot
    the slightest whisper that the principle had been departed
                                                               H.
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A        from in the 1968 order. In fact the 1968 order expressly
         stated that the Government had accepted the Kothari
         Commission's report in regard to scales of pay and as
         already pointed out by us the main feature of the Kothari
         Commission's report in regard to pay was the linking of
B        pay to qualification. That was apparently the reason why
         no such argument was advanced in Kirpal Singh Bhatia
         case. Even subsequently when several writ petitions were
         disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and
         when the Government issued consequential orders, it was
c        never suggested that the 1968 order was a retraction from
         the principle of qualification linked pay. The 1968 order
         must be read in the light of the 1957 order and the report
         of the Kothari Commission which was accepted. If so read
         there can be no doubt that the Government never intended
         to retract from the principle that teachers acquiring the BT
D
         or BEd would be entitled to the higher grade with effect
         from the respective dates of their acquiring that
         qualification.

        17. With respect, we find it difficult to appreciate as to how
E the so-called failure of the Government to bring the 1968 order
  to the notice of this Court in Kirpa/ Singh Bhatia's case was
  relevant for deciding the issue raised in Chaman Lal v. State
  of Haryana (supra). The facts of Kirpal Singh Bhatia's case
  were that the respondents before this Court were employed as
F teachers in the former State of PEPSU. After merger· of the
  State of PEPSU with the State of Punjab, the respondents
  claimed the revised scale of pay from the date of acquiring the
  degrees of B.T. or its equivalent in terms of the policy contained
  in letter dated 23. 7.1957. They also claimed promotion to the
G post of Master. The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed
  by the respondents. The appeals preferred by the State were
  dismissed by this Court. Since letter dated 5.1.1968 issued by
  the Government of Haryana for giving effect to the decision
  taken by the President of India to accept the recommendations
H made by Kothari Commission for revision of the pay scales of
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                  43
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

the Government teachers had no bearing whatsoever on the A
claim of Kirpal Singh Bhatia and others, there was no occasion
for the Government of Punjab to produce that letter before the
High Court and/or this Court. We are sure, if the contents of
letter dated 5.1.1968 are read in a correct perspective,
interpretation thereof in Chaman Lat's case cannot be treated B
as correct. As per the recommendations of Kothari
Commission, the revision of pay scales was linked with
qualifications. This has been noted by the Court in Chaman
Lat's case and yet the so-called omission on the Government's
part to produce letter dated 5.1.1968 before this Court in Kirpa/c
Singh Bhatia's case was made a ground for holding that
notwithstanding revision of the pay scales of the teachers
employed under the Government of Haryana, they would
continue to get the benefit of the policy contained in letter dated
23.7.1957.
                                                                 D
      18. With a view to overcome the difficulties created by the
judgment in Chaman Lat's case, the Government of Haryana
issued instructions dated 9.3.1990 making explicit what was
implicit in the instructions issued vide letter dated 5.1.1968 for
implementation of the recommendations made by Kothari E
Commission. In Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 697, this Court considered the question whether the
teachers employed under the Government of Haryana are
entitled to higher grade admissible to Masters with effect from
the dates of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications. The F
concerned teachers relied upon the policy contained in letter
dated 23.7.1957 of the Government of Punjab, judgment in
Chaman Lat's case and pleaded that the benefit of higher grade
cannot be denied by the Government of Haryana despite the
policy contained in Finance Department letter dated 9.3.1990. G
On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the policy
instructions contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 were
superseded by the subsequent instructions issued on 9.3.1990.
The Court extracted the observations made in Chaman Lat's
case, referred to the policy contained in letter dated 9.3.1990 H
    44      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   and held that once the Government altered the earlier policy,
    the judgment in Chaman La/'s case will have no application and
    the appellants who had not acquired B.T./B.Ed. qualification
    before 9.3.1990 cannot claim the benefit of higher grade of pay
    automatically.
B
        19. In State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat (1999)
  8 sec 44, a somewhat similar issue was considered. The High
  Court had accepted the claim of the teachers that they are
  entitled to higher scales of pay according to qualifications
C irrespective of the post held by them. This Court noted that the
  recommendations made by Kothari Commission were
  accepted by the State Government and the pay scales of the
  teachers were revised vide letter dated 5.1.1968. The Court also
  took cognizance of the policy contained in letter dated 9.3.1990
  issued by the Finance Department of the Government of
D Haryana and rejected the claim of the respondent-teachers that
  they are entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to the post
  of Lecturers on their acquiring post-graduate qualifications.
  Paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the judgment which contain
  detailed consideration of the issue read as under:
E
         19. With effect from 1-11-1966, the State of Haryana came
         into existence. Earlier there was an Education Commission
         popularly known as "the Kothari Commission" at the
         national level which made recommendations regarding
F        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
G
         Government was contained in Letter No. 152-Edu.11-68/540
         dated 5-1-1968 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
H
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                   45
          & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
  incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher A
  scale or the lower scale as mentioned in the letter. Column
  II referred to the category of teachers and Column Ill set
  out the revised grades. SI. No. 1 pertains to JBT/JST/JAV
  etc. SI. No. 2 pertains to Masters/Mistresses (trained
  graduates). SI. No. 3 relates to Lecturers (postgraduates). B
  The NB reads: "The Lecturers will be given one advance
  increment as soon as they attain professional training." SI.
  No. 4 refers to Headmasters/Headmistresses etc. There
  is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of
  Lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to the Punjab c
  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 at SI. D
  No. 1 and SI. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become
  Lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the .
  Lecturers.

  20. It may be mentioned here that there was an earlier letter
  issued by the Punjab Government on 29-7-1967 revising           E
  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 Commission. Though the said letter is not
  applicable to the Teachers in the present case, reference       F
  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.                              G

  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. Letter No. 7/2(1)/90-4 FR-I dated,
  Chandigarh, 9-3-1990 sent by the Financial Commissioner         H
    46        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A        & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Finance
         Department to the Commissioner & Secretary to
         Government of Haryana, Education Department. That letter
         makes a reference to the circular letter dated 23-7-1957
         issued by the Punjab Government to which we have already
B        adverted in detail. The letter also makes 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 29-2-1980 by virtue of which the letter dated 5-1-
c        1968 stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the
         said letter that the Haryana Government had revised the
         pay scales further under Notification No. GSR-20/Const./
         Art/309/87 dated 29-4-1987 with effect from 1986.
         Ultimately, the letter clarifies that the teachers in the
         Education Department in the State of Haryana were not
D
         entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms
         of para 3 of the Punjab Government letter dated 23-7-
         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
E        letter reads as follows:

                "The Masters/Teachers in the Education Department
         will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective
         categories to which they are appointed against the
F        sanctioned posts and mere possessing/acquiring 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
G
          from time to time and the 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 postgraduate qualifications
          or such qualifications as are prescribed for the post of
H
 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. v. HEM LATA GUPTA                47
           & ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
     Lecturers. We have already pointed out that the post of A
     Lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets
     of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service
     Class Ill School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments
     thereto. Hence, the common question raised in these
     matters has to be answered in the negative against the B
     Teachers/Masters/Mistresses some of whom are
     respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 and the
     others being petitioners in SLPs and appellants in Civil
     Appeal No. 2104 of 1998.

     20. The Court then considered various judgments rendered C
by this Court and the High Court including Kirpal Singh
Bhatia's case, Gurpal Tuli v. State of Punjab 1984 Supp SCC
716, Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers' Union v. State of
Punjab ( 1988) 2 SCC 407, Baij Nath v. State of Punjab ( 1996)
8 sec    516, Chaman Lal's case, Wazir Singh's case, State D
of Haryana v. Ravi Ba/a_(J997) 1 SCC 267 and concluded that
on acquiring postgraduate qualification or qualifications
prescribed for the post of Lecturers, teachers are not
automatically entitled to the scales of pay of the Lecturers
without being appointed as Lecturers in accordance with the E
rules.

     21. In our view, the doubts and confusion created due to
the judgment in Chaman La/'s case on the entitlement of the
teachers to automatically get particular pay scale prescribed   F
for higher post have been clarified by the judgments in Wazir
Singh's case and Kamal Singh Saharawat's case and in view
of the latter decisions, the respondents' claim for grant of
advance increments in terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued
by the Government of Punjab cannot be accepted.
                                                                G
     22. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to
observe that while deciding the writ petitions filed by the
respondents, the High Court neither adverted to the reasons
assigned by the Director for rejecting the respondents' claim
for advance increments nor any fault was found with order dated H
    48      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A 30.7.1998. The High Court also failed to notice that the writ
  petitions were filed not only by the Masters/Mistresses, but also
  by other categories of teachers i.e., Lecturers, Language
  Teachers, Physical Training Instructors etc. who could not, by
  any stretch of imagination, lay claim for advance increments in
B terms of Memo dated 1.9.1960 issued by the Government of
  Punjab which was confined to the Masters only. Therefore, on
  this ground also the direction given by the High Court for grant
  of advance increments to the respondents cannot be sustained.

       23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
C orders are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the
  respondents before the High Court are dismissed. However, it
  is made clear that this order shall not be made a ground to deny
  the benefit, if any, admissible to the respondents or any one of
  them in terms of the policy contained in letter dated 20.6.1977.
D Rather, the State Government and the concerned authorities
  should suo motu undertake appropriate exercise for grant of
  benefit of that policy to the respondents and other similarly
  situated persons, pass appropriate orders and pay monetary
  benefits to the concerned teachers within six months from the
E date of production/receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless
  to say that such benefit shall not be admissible to the teachers
  who may have improved their qualifications on or after
  20.12.1982 i.e., the date on which the policy contained in letter
  dated 20.6.1977 was withdrawn.
F
  R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.