Holding

The 1990 Haryana policy supersedes the 1957 instruction, limiting the automatic grant of higher grade pay to teachers who acquired B.T./B.Ed. before 9 March 1990; thereafter, the higher grade is not automatic.

Summary

The appellants were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers (J.B.T.) in Haryana government schools without B.T./B.Ed. qualifications and later obtained those degrees. They sought higher grade (Masters) pay automatically, relying on a 1957 Punjab Government instruction that linked pay to qualification. The State of Haryana contended that a later policy dated 9 March 1990 superseded the 1957 instruction, limiting the benefit to teachers who had acquired B.T./B.Ed. before that date. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1990 policy validly altered the earlier rule and whether the precedent set in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) applied. The Court held that the 1990 policy expressly retracted the earlier principle, and therefore only those teachers who obtained the qualification before 9 March 1990 were entitled to the higher grade; the others were not. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, granting relief to five appellants who qualified before the cut‑off and denying it to the rest.

Issues considered

Whether the Haryana Government's policy dated 9 March 1990 supersedes the Punjab Government's 1957 instruction regarding automatic higher grade pay for teachers acquiring B.T./B.Ed.
Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana (1987) is applicable to the present facts.
Whether teachers who acquire B.T./B.Ed. after 9 March 1990 are entitled to the Masters grade of pay automatically.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 226, s. 227

Subjects

teacher recruitmentpay scalequalification‑linked paypolicy supersessionadministrative lawwrit petitionhigher grade payservice law

Judgment

A WAZIR SINGH, JET TEACHER AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
B
f.l.S. VERMA AND K. YENKATASWAMI, JJ.j

Service Laiv:

C State of Ha1yana-Goven11nent schools----Teac/ze1:'1-Appoinln1ent-Ac-
quisitio11 of higher qualifications subscque11tly-Ciaim for higher wadl-
Claint based on instructions issued by State Govenin1ent--Instructio11s super-
seded by mbsequent policy decisio11 of Govenunent-Tcachm· govemed by
changed policy decision-Held 1101 entitled to higher b•·ade automatically.

D The appellants were appointed as J.B.T.. teachers in Government
schools in the State of Haryana. Subsec1uently they acquired B.T/B.Ed.
degrees and claimed higher grade as admissible to the Masters with effect
from respective dates of their acquiring higher qualifications. They based
their claim on the instructions dated July 23, 1957 issued by Government
E of Pun.jab. The respondent-State disputed the appellants' claim on the
ground that the instructions dated July 23, 1957 relied on by the appellants
were superseded by a later policy decision dated March 9,1990 taken by
the Government of Haryana which provided that the pay scales admissible
to the Masters would be .given to such teachers who have been appointed
against the posts for which the qualification is B.A. B.Ed. In other words,
F teachers \\-'ho acctuire higher qualification during the course of tludr service
would not be entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay automatically.
The High Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the relief
prayed for because they were never appointed against the post of' l\1asters.

G In appeal to this Court it \\''as contended that in view of the judgment
of this court in Chaman Lai v. State of Ha1)'a1w, [1987] 3 SCC 113 the
appellants were entitled to the higher grade of pay.

Dis1rnsing the appeal, this Court

H HELD : I. From the policy of the Government dated 93.1990 it is
138
WAZIR SINGH v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.[ 139

clear that the Government have altered their earlier policy decision dated A
23.7.1957. In its revised policy the Government have expressed their une-
quivocal intention to retract f'rorn the earlier principle that teachers ac-
lJUiring the B.T. or B. Ed. degree would he entitled to the higher grade with
effect fron1 the res1Jective dates of their ac'-1uiring that (JUalification. Rut
for the policy instructions issued by the Haryana Government on 9.3.1990
B
the ruling of this Court in Chaman Lat's case would have definitely applied
to the facts of this case. The appellants who have not acquired the
B.T./B.Ed. degree before 9.3.1990 cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of
higher grade of pay automatically. (144-G-B, H, 145-A]

Chaman Lal v. State of Hmyana, (1987] 3 SCC 113, held inapplicable. C

2. In order to prevent'3vi1idahle multiplicity of litigation it is made
clear that all those who have 3C<JUired B.T./B.Ed. degree before 9.3.1990
would he entitled to get the benefit of para 2 of the Punjab Government
letter dated 23.7.1957 and those who have acquired B.T./R.Ed. degree
subsequently are governed by the changed policy of Haryana Government D
dated 9.3.1990. (145-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9219 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.94 of the Punjab & E
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 3201of1993.

Pardeep Gupta and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants.

K.C. Bajaj and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted.

I.A. No. 1/95 for impleadment is allowed.
G
The appellants arc teachers in Govcrnn1ent schools in the State of
Haryana. The appellants were appointed as (J .B.T.) teachers in the schools
as they <lid not possess B.T./B.EJ. qualification al the ti1nc nf their appoint-
ments. Ho\vevCr, they acquired B.T. B.cd. degree on various dates as
tnentionecl in page 9 of the S.L.P. Paper Book and also at page 53 (so far H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A as newly impleaded appellant No. 8 is concerned). They moved the High
•
Count of Punjab & Haryana under Artide 226/227 of the Constitution of
India for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give
them the higher grade admissible to the Masters with effect from respective
dates of their acquiring B.T./B.Ed. qualifications and they also prayed for
issue of writ of Mandamus to the respondents to implement the decision/
B
direction of this Court in the case of Chama11 Lal v. State of Haiyana
reported in 1987 (3) sec 113.

In response to the notice of motion c'5ued by the High Court, written
statement on behalf of respondents was filed and therein it was brought to
C the notice of the Court that the erstwhile Punjab Government's Instructions
dated July 23, 1957 on the basis of which the petitioners/ appellants rested
their claims, stood superseded and no more applicable to the employees
of the Haryana Government. It was also stated in the written statement that
a policy decision was taken by the Government of Haryana in Finance
D Department Letter No. 7/2 (i)/90-FRI dated March 9, 1990 stating that the
pay-scales admissible to the Masters, that is, B.A., B.Ed. would be given to
such teachers ho have been appointed against the posts for which the
qualification is BA. B.Ed. In the light of the written statement and also
applying the earlier decision of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 14736of1991
dated December 1,1992, the ·learned Judges held that the appellants were
E not entitled to the reliefs prayed for as they were never appointed against
the post of Masters. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the
present special leave to appeal is preferred by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged before us that
F the ratio laid down by this Court in i l'J87] 3 sec 113 (supra) will apply in
full force to the facts of this case and, therefore, the appellants would be
entitled to succeed in the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in
Chanian La/'s case this Court \Vas considering the scope of the letter dated
G July 23, 1957 issued by the composite Punjab Government in the light of
subsequent order of Haryana Government dated 5.9. 79. However, in the
present case the letter dated 23.7.57 stood superseded by the latest policy
instructions issued by the Haryana Govt. on 9.3.1990 and therefore, the
judgment in [1987] 3 SCC 113 will be no avail. He also invited our attention
H to the policy instructions contained in the letter dated 9.3.1990 which is
WAZIR SINGH v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.] 141
...
Annexure III to the Special Leave Petition found at page 44. A
But for the policy instructions now issued by the Haryana Govern-
ment on 9.3.1990, the ruling of this Court in Chaman Lat's case would have
definitely applied to the facts of this case. In Chaman Lat's case this Court
considered both the letter dated 23.7.1957 and the Order dated 5.9.1979.
While considering the scope of the letter and order, this Court also took B
note of certain admissions made by the Government during that period and
observed as follows :

"It is thus seen that from 1957 to 1980 whenever the question arose,
it was always accepted that teachers who acquired the B.T. or c
B.Ed. qualification would be entitled to higher grade of pay as
soon as they acquired the qualification irrespective of the dates
when they were adjusted against the posts of Masters. The adjust-
ment against the posts of Masters was relevant for the purpose of
seniority in the posts of Masters and for the further purpose of
promotion from that post. So far as the scale of pay was concerned 9
irrespective of adjustment against the post of Master, a teacher
was always held to be entitled to the higher scale of pay from the
date of the acquisition of the B.T. or B.Ed. qualification.

2. On September 5, 1979, the Government of Haryana issued an E
order in the following words :

Sanction of the Governor of Haryana is hereby accorded w.e.f.
September 5, 1979 of the grant of Masters grade to unadjusted
JBT teachers who have passed B.A./B.Ed. subject to the following
conditions : F

(i) That the expenditure involved would be met from the savings
of the current year revised sanctioned estimates.

(ii) That these teachers will not be allowed any seniority in the
G
cadre of Masters.

(iii) That it will not form a precedent for future.

(iv) That the award of Master's grade to the concerned teachers
would be personal to them. H
,r
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
...
A This order of the Government is now sought to be interpreted and
it has been so interpreted by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in the Judgment under appeal that those teachers who
had acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. qualification subsequent to Decem-
ber 1, 1967 (the date on which the 1968 order came into force)
and before September 5, 1979 would be entitled to the higher grade
B
but with effect from September 5, 1979 only and that those who
acquired the qualification subsequent to September 5, 1979 would
not be entitled to the higher grade. 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 B.T. or B.Ed.
c qualification should get the higher grade and that a concession was
shown in 1979 enabling the teachers who acquired the B.T. or
B.Ed. 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 1980. The principle that pay
should be linked to qualification was accepted by the Punjab
D
Government in 1957 and when Kirpal Singh Bhatia case was
argued in the High Court and in the Supreme Court there was not
the slightest whisper that the principle had been departed from in f.he
1968 order. In fact the 1968 order expressly stated that the Govern-
ment had accepted the Kothari Commission's report in regard to
E scales of pay and as already pointed out by us the main feature of
the Kothari Commission's report in regard to scales of pay was the
linking of 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
F High Court of Punjab and Haryana and when the Government
issued consequential orders, it was 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
G to retract from the principle that teachers acquiring the B. T. or B.Ed.
would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective
dates of their acquiring that qualification. The 1975 order was
indeed superfluous."

H In the present revision of pay scale of Govt. employees teaching
WAZIRS!NGH v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI,J.] 143

Personnel of the Education Department (hereinafter called the 'policy of A
the (iovernment'), in unequivocal terms the Government have expressed
their intention to retract fron1 the earlier principle that tc<:1chers acquiring
the B.T. or B.Ed. degree would be entitled to the higher grade with effect
from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. Relevant
portions in the policy of Government dated 9.3.1990 read as follow.s :
B
"I am directed to refer to composite Punjab Govt. Finance Depart-
ment circular No. 5056-FR-ll/57 dated the 23rd .July, 1957 on the
subject noted above, which contains the details regarding the
revision of the pay scales of various categories of subordinate
services (including teachers) done on the recommendations made C
by the Pay Revisions Committee, then appointed to examine this
matter. While evolving revised pay scales in respect of different
categories of teachers in the Education Department, in para 3 of
above mentioned circular, two broad categories namely, category
'A' and category 'B'. of teachers were mcntioned1 inter alia laying D
down the requirements of academic qualifications in their cases.
It ivould not have been intended by the Govenunent that on their
acquisition of High acadeniic qualijicatio11, va1ious categolies of
teache1>· in tile· /ower grades shall automatically be placed in the
different higher grade commensurate with their academic qualifica-
tion. Normally, pay scales of various category of posts in any E
Department are sanctioned keeping in view the minimum qualifica-
tions required for each category of posts, besides the duties
prescribed for them. Similarly, the teaching posts are sanctioned
for various educational institutions keeping in view the subjects
and classes, the incumhcnts of these posts arc required lo leach F
and for that specific qualifications are prescribed in the service
rule as well at the time of recruitment. For example, if a B.A. B.Ed.
pass candidate \vith the qualifications of Matric J .B.T. also applied
for the post of Matric .J.B.T. and is taken into service on the basis
of highe'r qualification, he/she cannot claim the grade of
Master/Mistress but will get the sanctioned scale of pay of teacher G
meant for Matric J.B.T. Similarly, if a Matric .J.B.T. teacher im-
proves his qualification during the course of service and acquires
degree of B.A. B.Ed or of language teacher i.e. O.T. Giani or
Prabhakar, he cannot claim the scale of Master i.e. B.A. B.Ed. or
of language teac.:her unle!;s he i.\· appointed as Master against the H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
.
A post of Master and language teacher against the post of language
teacher for which the minimum qualifications are BA. B.Ed and
0. T. (Giani or Prabhakar) respectively.

2. As the instructions contained in paragraph 3 of the above
mentioned letter dated 23rd July, 1957 did not bring out the above
B 1nentioned intentions of the Government in unambiguous terms, it
has resulted in different interpretations i.e. automatic grant of
higher scales of pay on the basis of qualifications irrespective of
number of posts available in the Department in that category ....
....... it was never the intention of the Stale Government to under-
c take the continuing heavy financial burden that has devolved on it
because of the faulty framing of the above-mentioned instructions.

(3 to 5 omitted)

6. In order to remove the confusion being created by misconstruing
D the intention of the Government the whole matter has been recon-
sidered by the State Government. As a result of the reconsideration,
the Govemor of Hmyana is pleased to c/aiify that the teachers of the
Education Depmtment are not entitled to be placed in the higher
scales of pay in tenns of para 2 of the Punjab Govemment letter No.
5056-FR-11/57/6600 dated 23rd July, 1957 or any subsequent let-
E
ters/notifications is·sued by the Hmyana Govemment refe1Ted to in
the preceding paras, which lette1:'i already beconie inoperative on their
improving/acquiiing higher qualifications dwing the course of their
se1vice auto111atica//y. The masters/teachers in the Education
Department will be placed in che scales of pay of their respective
F categories to which they arc appointed against the sanctioned posts
and mere possession/acquiring of higher qualilications will not
entitled them automatically to claim higher pay scales. (emphasis
supplied)"

G From the above extracts, it is clear that the Government have altered
their earlier policy and, therefore, the judgment in Cha111a11 Lat's case will
have no application. The appellants who have not acquired the B.T./B.Ed
before 9.3.90 cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of higher grade of pay
automatically.

H Learned counsel for the respondents frankly conceded that all those
WAZJRSINGH v. STATE[K. VENKATASWAMI,J.] 145

who have acquired B.T./B.Ed before 9.3.90 would be entitled to get higher A
scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the composite Punjab Government letter
dated 23.7.1957.

We find that among the appellants 5 of them, namely, appellants Nos.
2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 who have acquired B.T./B.Ed prior to 9.3.90 would gel the
benefit and the others are not entitled to get the relief. To that extent B
mentioned above, the appeal succeeds.

In order to prevent avoidable multiplicity of litigation, we make it
clear that all those wlio have acquired B.T./B.Ed before 9.3.90 would be
entitled to get the benefit of para 2 of the Punjab Government letter dated C
23.7.1957 and those who have acquired B.T./B.Ed subsequently are
governed by the changed policy of Haryana Government dated 9.3.1990.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

I