STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusJASBIR SINGH AND ORS.

A                          STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
                                           v.
                             JASBIR SINGH AND ORS.

                                    JULY 17, 2006

B           [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]


          Service Law:

          Pay scale-Revision in-Teachers appointed on transfer basis as
C lecturer-Claim for pay scale of lecturer-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled in
    terms of Government Order dated 3.8.1990 which categorically mentions that
    concerned officers were appointed on transfer basis in their awn present p:iy
    scale and they are not entitled to any monetary benefits.

          Respondents were working as teachers. On the basis of Government
D Order, certain officials were to be appointed on deputation and on transfer
    basis, in their present pay scales. Respondents were accordingly posted and
    on transfer they were appointed as lecturers. They filed writ petition wherein
    they claimed the pay scales as applicable to lecturers from the date of the
    initial deputation till absorption as lecturers. High Court held that the
E   respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers and, therefore,
    from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they were entitled
    to the revised scale of pay. Aggrieved State filed the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

F         HELD: I. It was categorically mentioned in the Government order dated
    3.8.1990 that the concerned officers were appointed on deputation and on
    transfer basis, in their own present pay scale and they were not entitled to
    any monetary benefit, seniority etc. In view of the clear stipulations, the High
    Court fell into grave error in holding that the respondents were entitled to
    pay scale applicable to lecturers. (644-F, GI
G
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2999 of2006.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2002 of the High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5857/1999, 3243
    and 8774/2000.
H                                          642
               STATEOFPUNJABv. JASBIRSINGH [PASA YAT,J.]                      643

       Sarup Singh. AAG, Punjab and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.               A
       Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.                                             B
       Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondents are entitled
to pay at a scale applicable to lecturer, from the date of the initial deputation
till absorption as lecturer.

       Undisputed background, are essentially as follows:
                                                                                    c
       Respondents were working as teachers designated as masters in the
Punjab Education Department. On· the basis of the Government order No. 22/
7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated 20.07.90 certain officials were appointed on
deputation and on transfer basis in their present pay scale against the post D
mentioned against each. Nine persons were accordingly posted and on transfer
they were appointed as lecturers. The Government order dated 3.8.1990 is of
significance to which we shall advert infra. The respondents made a claim that
they were entitled to the pay scales as lecturers since they were on deputation
and the experience as lecturer should be computed in the parent department. E
The High Court held that the claim of arrears of salary for the period from 1989
onwards is on account of difference in the scale of pay. The same was found
to be belated and acco1 dingly the prayer was rejected. However, it was
noticed that the respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers
and therefore, from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they
were entitled to the revised scale of pay.                                         F
       In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the order dated 3.8.1990 clearly indicated that the claim for any sort of
monetary benefit or experience benefit was not available. After having accepted
that the claim was belated the High Court should not have treated it to be
a case of continuing cause of action. The claim was highly belated and, G
therefore, no relief was available. The effect of the order dated 3.8.1990 has
been completely lost sight of by the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in
the year, 1989, the High Court as noted above, dismissed the claim for arrear
of sa:aries and had directed the present appellants to grant the benefit of
salary rendered from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization. H
    644                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A         Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that
    the respondents having rendered service for a long period cannot be deprived
    of their legitimate entitlement.

          Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the
    respondents had worked as lecturers and merely because there is some
B   stipulation in the order dated 3.8.1990 relating to deputation and on transfer
    basis that cannot override the logic of equal pay for equal work.

         Learned counsel for the respondents tried to explain that the true
    meaning of the descriptive part of the order clearly shows that the respondents
C   were undertaking the jobs of lecturers in the college.

           The relevant portion of the order dated 3.8.1990 reads as follows:

                 "On the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee for
            appointment in the (DIET's Faculty) institutes of education and
            training. The following officials are hereby appointed on deputation
D           and on transfer basis in their own present pay scale against the post
            mentioned against each. They will not be entitled for any other
            monetary benefits, seniority, deputation allowance and claim in any
            way the experience benefit against the post of Lecturer. These orders
            are issued in compliance with Govt. order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-
E           78, dated 20.07.90."

         A bare reading of the aforesaid underlined operation clearly shows that
    the respondents' claim was clearly unacceptable. It was categorically
    mentioned in the order extracted above that the concerned officers were
    appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their own present pay scale
F   and they were not entitled to any monetary benefit, seniority etc.

          In view of the clear stipulations, the High Court fell into grave error in
    holding that the respondents were entitled to pay scale applicable to Lecturers.
    That being so the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.

G          The appeal is alloweC:. No orders as to costs.

    D.G.                                                          Appeal allowed.