1996 JTR(SC) 1994
1997 AIR(SC) 2396 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2306 ; 1996 Supp JT 94 ; 1997 LIC 496 ; 1997 2 LLJ 1000 ; 1996 9 Scale 16 ; 1997 1 SCC 267 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 724 ; 1996 SCR 206 ; 1997 2 SCT 300 ; 1997 2 SLJ 87 ; 1997 1 SLR 290 ; 1997 KHC 654 ; 1997 1 Supreme 27
1997(1) Supreme 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Haryana & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Ravi Bala & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15401 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12503 of 1996)
Decided on 26-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ajay Siwach, Advocate for Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Pankaj Kalra, Advocate.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of employment for public servants, and the provisions herein relate to the fixation of pay scales for teaching personnel in the Education Department. The case hinges on the interpretation of Government instructions and circulars, particularly the Punjab Government letter dated July 23, 1957, and the consequential policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana on March 9, 1990, which explicitly clarified the non-automatic applicability of higher pay scales for qualifications acquired after the specified date.
(B) Key legal principles include the retrospective operation of service instructions, the finality of departmental orders on pay fixation, and the principle that acquiring higher qualifications during service does not automatically warrant a revision in pay scales unless expressly provided.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers and later acquired B.T./E.Ed. qualifications. They claimed parity and higher pay scales based on a 1957 Punjab Government circular. The High Court issued directions based on this claim.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the respondents were not entitled to higher pay scales as their qualifications were acquired after March 9, 1990, and the 1990 policy instructions were prospective in nature, effectively overruling any automatic benefit from earlier circulars.
Issues:
Whether the respondents are entitled to higher scales of pay on the basis of qualifications acquired after the policy instructions of March 9, 1990.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the 1990 Government instructions were prospective and that mere acquisition of higher qualifications during service does not automatically entitle employees to higher pay scales.
Result:
The appeal was allowed without costs.
(A) The Service Law governs the terms and conditions of employment for public servants, and the provisions herein relate to the fixation of pay scales for teaching personnel in the Education Department. The case hinges on the interpretation of Government instructions and circulars, particularly the Punjab Government letter dated July 23, 1957, and the consequential policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana on March 9, 1990, which explicitly clarified the non-automatic applicability of higher pay scales for qualifications acquired after the specified date.
(B) Key legal principles include the retrospective operation of service instructions, the finality of departmental orders on pay fixation, and the principle that acquiring higher qualifications during service does not automatically warrant a revision in pay scales unless expressly provided.
Facts of the case:
The respondents were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers and later acquired B.T./E.Ed. qualifications. They claimed parity and higher pay scales based on a 1957 Punjab Government circular. The High Court issued directions based on this claim.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the respondents were not entitled to higher pay scales as their qualifications were acquired after March 9, 1990, and the 1990 policy instructions were prospective in nature, effectively overruling any automatic benefit from earlier circulars.
Issues:
Whether the respondents are entitled to higher scales of pay on the basis of qualifications acquired after the policy instructions of March 9, 1990.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the 1990 Government instructions were prospective and that mere acquisition of higher qualifications during service does not automatically entitle employees to higher pay scales.
Result:
The appeal was allowed without costs.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. The respondents had filed writ petition claiming higher scale of pay on their acquiring B.T./E.Ed. qualification. Admittedly, they were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers. They improved their qualifications and claimed parity on the basis of the letter issued by the then Punjab Government on July 23, 1957 in Circular No. 5056-FR-11/57. The High Court issued the directions. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana1 wherein this Court had held while dealing with the revision of the pay-scale of Government employees, i.e., teaching personnel of the Education Department, the Government of Haryana had in their policy instructions dated March 9, 1990 expressed in unequivocal terms that the intention to retract from the earlier principle that teachers acquiring the B.T. of B.Ed. degree would be entitled to the higher grade with effect from the respective dates of their acquiring that qualification. Therefore, as they did not acquire the qualification before 9.3.1990, they are not entitled to the benefit of the higher grade of pay automatically.
4. It is contended by Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned Counsel for the respondents, that this controversy was considered by this Court in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana2 and the Government cannot by the memo dated March 9, 1990 set at naught the judgment of this Court. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the Government have specifically explained in their letter that though the composite Punjab State had issued the above circular which was accepted by the Kothari Commission, the Government of Haryana after its letter dated January 5, 1968 had not followed that Punjab Order. However, it was construed that the Government have adopted the above letter. In that light, they had reconsidered the entire issue and stated in paragraph 6 of the letter thus :
6. In order to remove the confusion being created by misconstruing the intention of the Govt., the whole matter has been reconsidered by the State Govt. As a result of the reconsideration, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to clarify that the teachers of the Education Department are not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab Govt. letter No. 5056-F-11-57/6600 dated 23rd July, 1957 or any subsequent letters/notifications issued by the Haryana Govt. referred to in the preceding paras, which letters already become inoperative on their improving/ acquiring higher qualifycations during the course of their service automatically. The masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the scales of pay of their respective to which they are appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possessing/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them automatically to claim higher pay scales."
5. This letter was considered by this Court in Wazir Singh s case and it was held that those who acquired the qualifications are not automatically entitled to the fitment in the higher pay scales. In the judgment in Wazir Singh s case itself it was mentioned in para 10 that the counsel appearing for the State had conceded that all those who had acquired B.T. and/or B.Ed. before March 9, 1990 would be entitled to get higher scales of pay in terms of para 2 of the Punjab State s letter dated July 23, 1957. Therefore, the circular of the Government dated March 9, 1990 would be prospective in operation; it would be applicable to those candidates who acquired the qualifications on and after the said date and they are not entitled to higher scale of pay.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
*******