Holding

The step‑up of pay for the respondents is not warranted as the higher pay of the 181 instructors is a personal entitlement that remains valid, and the respondents cannot relitigate matters already decided.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had allowed a group of industrial training institute instructors to have their salaries stepped up to match those of junior instructors who were receiving higher pay. Prior to 1961 all instructors were on a uniform pay scale, but in 1961 the pay scales of instructors in eight trades were increased, creating a higher personal pay for 181 such instructors. The State later placed all instructors in a common pay band in 1970, but allowed those 181 instructors to retain their higher personal pay, and this was taken into account in the 1976 pay revision. In 1989 the remaining instructors filed writ petitions seeking a step‑up, arguing that it was unfair for juniors to earn more than them. The Supreme Court held that the higher pay for the 181 instructors was a personal right that continued after the revisions and that the respondents had previously lost similar challenges, so they could not reopen the matter. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissed the respondents’ writ petitions and allowed the State’s appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents are entitled to a step‑up in pay to equal the salaries of junior instructors who are drawing a higher amount.
Whether the earlier classification and personal pay granted to the 181 instructors of eight trades can be revisited by the respondents.

Subjects

service lawpay revisionstep‑upindustrial training institutepersonal paywrit petitionletters patent appeal

Judgment

A THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
v.
DHARAM PAUL AND ORS.
'
JANUARY 22, 1996

B [K RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

·Service Law :

Stepping up of pay-Industrial Training institrites/Centres in. State of
C Punjab-,-lnstructors-Pay .scale· of-Earlier all instrnctor/getti1;g same pay
scale-Later instrnctors of 8 trades give11 different paj scal~Subsequently all
instructors given one and same pay scale but instrnctors of 8 trades allowed
to retain the higher pay scale as personal to them-Fixation• of salary in
revised pay scale-Salary of Instructors getting higher pay scale before revision
fu:ed according to their'pre-revised salary-Clain• of other instrnctors for
D stepping up their pay alleging that salaries of their juniors were fu:ed at a
higher stage-field, not maintainable. · . .\

The present appeal was filed by the State Government of Punjab
against the order of the High Court allowing the claim of the Instructors
E of Industrial Training Institutes/Centres to step up their pay. prior to 1961
all instructors of Industrial Training Institutes/Centres in the State were
getting the'same pay scale. Thereafter pay scales of instructors of 8 trades
were changed. The instructors who were not covered under those 8 trades,
nnsuccessfully challenged the said classification before the High Court. In .
1970 the State Government revised the staffing pattern of instructors in
F all trades and placed them all in the same pay scale. However, the scale of
pay the 181 instructors of 8 trades were getting was allowed as personal
to them. In the year 1976 the pay scale in respect of all the instructors was
. fu_rther revised and the pay of individual instructor was fixed in the revised
scale depending upon the salary he was drawing in the pre-revised scale.
,.
G In 1989 the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court for a
direction to get their pay stepped up alleging that 181 Instructors, of 8
grades drawing higher salary were junior to them. The State resisted the
~laim contending that the respondents having failed in the earlier writ
petition, the division in pay scale had become final and when all the'
H instructors W'ere brought under- one pay scale the instructors of 8 trades
826

L
L
,
i
\
'
STATEv.
. DHARAMPAUL[PATTANAIK,J.]
' . 827

JI getting higher salary were allowed to draw the pay scale as personal to A
. them, and therefore when the pay scale was further revised, the pay of the
individual instructors was rightly fixed according to the salary they we..;,
drawing before the revision. The Single judge of the High Court allowed
the writ petition and the letters patent appeal filed by the State Govern·
ment was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench.
B
Allowing the .appeal, this Court

} HELD: The High Court eom~itted erro~
an by directlng step'ping up
of the pay of the respondents on the assumption th~t the juniors are getting
a higher amount. While fixing the pay in the n.W pay scale as revised in 1976, C
necessarily the higher pay earlier draw,; by 181 instructors belonging to the
8 trades was taken into account and they got a higher su.m. In the cir·
cumstances the question of stepping np of the pay of respondents does not
3rise. Those.181 instructors originally may have been.junior to these
. respondents but by virtue of the Government order dated 23rd February,
'1962 they having been given higher scale of pay than the re~pondents and ·D
the same benefit having been continued as personal pay to them, in the
·subsequent revision of the pay scale and the persons similarly placed like
respondents having challenged and lost in the earlier 'Vrit Petitions it is not
open to them to reopen the matter. [829-G, 830-B-C)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC110N : Civil Appeal Nos. 2206-
2209 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.94 & 1.11.94 of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 439/94, C.W.P; No. 13546, 5346 of
~ F
'·. Sanjay Bansal and G.K. B.;,,.al for the Appellants.

P.P. Rao, R.K. Chopra and P.N. Puri for the Respondents:

. The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by G
PATTANAIK," J. Leave granted

These appeals by the State of Punjab are directed against the judg-
ment of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court which dismissed the
Letters Patent Appeal in limini and confirmed the order of the learned 'H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. I

A Single Judge. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
respondents are entitled to relief of getting their pay step up and made
equal to the pay drawn by other instructors irrespective of the trade in
which they are working. The respondents filed Writ Petitions in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana alleging that even though they possess the
same qualification and were appointed as instructors and were continuing
B as such, but with effect from 4.1.1961, pay scales of instructors in respect
of 8 trades were changed whereas the respondents' pay scales have not
been changed. In the subsequent pay revision even though there has been
no distinction but yet those group of persons who were drawing a higher
scale of pay on the basis of their trades continue to get. the same higher
C pay even though they are juniors to respondents and, therefore, the respon-
dents should be entitled to get their pay by way of stepping up. The stand
of the State, on the other hand, was that it is no doubt true that prior to
1961 all the instructors in Grade II irrespective of their trade were getting
same scale of pay but subsequently in respect of instructors of 8 trades the
pay scales were changed and respondents were not covered by those 8
D trades. Some of the employees similarly situated as the respondents chal-
lenged the said classification by filing a Writ Petition which was ultimately
dismissed and Letters Patent Appeal against the same was also dismissed
and as such the matter became final. In 1970 the State Government revised
the staffing pattern for instructors of Industrial Training Institu-
E tions/Centres and placed all the instructors in the pay scale of Rs. 160-400.
While doing so, in respect of those instructors who were getting higher
scale of pay numbering 181 were allowed to enjoy their earlier pay scale
as personal to them and all the instructors were designated as instructors
and not junior or senior. In the year 1976 the pay so.ale was further revised
to Rs. 225-500 and the pay of individual instructor was fixed in the scale
F depending upon the salary he was drawing in the pre-existing scale. It is
only in the year 1989 the respondents instructors filed the Writ Petition
claiming the relief of step up on the allegation that their juniors are getting
a higher amount. According to the stand of the State Government m view
of the failure on the part of the respondents to assail the correctness of
G the classification providing different scale of pay made on the basis of their
trade, in as much as the Writ Petition an well as the Letters Patent Appeal
against the same having been dismissed, it is not open for them to re-open
the matter. The further stand is that even when one pay scale was fixed by
way of revision for all lhe instructors but those who were getting a higher
scale of pay in pursuance to earlier order were allowed to continue in the
H said higher scale of pay as personal to them and necessarily in fixing their
STATEv. DHARAMPAUL[PATTANAIK,J.] 829

pay in the revised scale the amount they were drawing prior to revision has A
to be taken into account and thus question of stepping up of the
respondents' pay does not arise. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ
Petition No. 10506 of 1989 which judgment was upheld in Letters Patent
Appeal out of which Special Leave Petition No. 4855 of 1995 arises. In the
two other cases the earlier judgment of the said Court has merely been
followed. B

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the so-called
division amongst the instructors giving a higher scale in respect of 8 trades
and a lower scale in respect of the rest by virtue of Government's Order
dated 23rd February, 1962, has become final and notwithstanding the C
fixation of one scale of pay for all instructors in 1970, instructors of the 8
trades who were getting a higher scale of pay have been allowed to enjoy
the same as personal to them and, therefore, the High Court was in error
to direct the appellant to step up the pay of the respondents. Mr. Rao,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand,
contended that the so-called bifurcation of the instructors as junior and D
senior is nothing but a misnomer as educational qualification of all instruc-
tors is the same and they had been recruited through the same process.
The learned counsel further urged that since on their representation the
Government ultimately abolished the distinction and brought all of them
in one scale in the year 1976, there would be no justification for furing the E
pay of the junior people at a higher slab than the respondents and,
therefore, the High Court rightly directed for stepping up of the pay.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on examining the
materials on record we are of the considered opinion that the High Court F
committed an error by directing stepping up of the pay of the respondents
on the assumption that the juniors are getting a higher amount. It is
un-disputed that the instructors originally were getting on scale of pay,
namely, 80-200 prior to 1961, but by virtue of the Government's Order
dated 23rd February, 1962 the said pay scale of Rs. 80-200 was revised to
Rs. 160-330 only in respect of the instructors in the 8 trades. The aforesaid G
pay revision in respect of the instructors belonging to the 8 trades was
challenged unsuccessfully by the rest of the instructors belonging to other
trades and the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3038/69 was dismissed as well as
the Letters Patent Appeal No. 654/1970 against the same was dismissed
by judgment dated 24th January, 1972. While the state Government in H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
;
" [1996] 1 S.C.R.

September W?O put all thy ins\ructors in one pay scale of Rs. 160-400 but
'so far a~ 18~,j~s\ructors who. had gqt ,a higher ssa)e of pay in pursua~c~,to
· the Governll\ent order dateq ,23ql. February, ,1992 .were .aJ/o.w~~ .to enj\ly
«their. scale as personal to them .. This beiµg the. admitted position, i!) '1976
the. pay scale was. further revised to Rs. 225-500 in respect of aU !he
"instructors but: while fixing the; pay in the revised scale ne<:essarily,.\be
higher pay drawn by thos~ 181 instructors belonging to the 8 trades;,was
taken into account and they got a higher sum. In these circumstances the
.. q\lestion of stepping· up 'of the. pay, of_ respondents dqes, noL adse. Those
181 instructors originally may have been junior. to these resppµdents,pu\•by
Vidue of the GovernmenLorder dated 23rd February, 1962 they having
C .been. given higher scale of pay than the respondents"and, th.e sa.me l;>en~fit
· having been continued .as a personal pay to .them;. in lhe ·s).11/sN\leJlt
·revision of the pay scale and the persons.similarly pla.ced ,like respoJ;J.dents
· having ·Challenged and lost in the .earlier Writ Petitions .it. is not open to
diem to rebpen the matter: In this view.of the matter we ljave )lo.hesitation
:1o·come to the conclusion that the learned Single'Judge without adverting
to the relevant facts granted the relief of.stepping up on the ground that
the qualification to the post of instructors being the same aµd they being
governed by same service ·conditions a junior person cannot get a higher
. sum. The Division Bench committed error in. Jimini dismissing the Letters
,, Patent Appeal: We accordingly'Set aside the judgments of the learned
,E · Single 'Judge as well as the judgment of the Division Bench and allow these
· appeals and consequently the Writ Petitions fileq by.the respondents sta!'d
dismissed. But jn the circumstances, .there will be no, order as to costs .. ,

R.P. Appeals allowed.
, ,! , !''.; LJ ! - I ~. . ·'• •, .._· ·.-:: ·,·1· ·~ ' i ~ ' I ' ,i I ' ~ , !'

'I I .' · .. ; J , £1 t •>,;. . ., ;• . ... r~ .
'.'. .·rlJ.

" 1 '· CJ' :: . J'. '; ~ -I

fl"'
., I.
'· - I.,

·;i .

.. ,. : •
·,' r

. ~ f ~.