STATE OF HARYANA Vs. CHAMPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by the State of Haryana are directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The dispute centres round the question whether the teachers of privately managed recognised aided schools would be entitled to the benefits which the government had conferred by issuing circulars at different point of time. In this batch of cases we are concerned with four such circulars, i. e. circulars dated 14.5.1991, 7.8.1992, 7.1.1994 and 8.2.1994. Out of these four circulars, the first two circulars appear to have been issued as an incentive to the employees of the Government of Haryana state and the third circular is an interim relief granted to them while the matter of revision of pay was under consideration before the Pay commission. The fourth circular dated 8.2.1994 is a higher scale of pay to the teachers of the Government schools in Haryana on certain contingencies. When the teachers of the privately managed schools filed the writ petition before the High Court, the state did not file any counter affidavit. In course of arguments before the High Court the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana conceded that the circular dated 8.2.1994, which had been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, is a matter relating to the scale of pay of the teachers. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, relying upon the earlier decisions of this court in the cases of Haryana State Adhyapak sangh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. [jt 1988 (3) SC 1721, State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rajpal Sharma and Ors. [jt 1996 (6) SC 710] as well as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and ors. v. State of Haryana [1990 (Supp. ) SCC 306], came to the conclusion that the teachers of the privately managed schools would be entitled to all the benefit emanating from the aforesaid four circulars which were undoubtedly meant only for the government servants in the State of Haryana.

(3.) Assailing, the aforesaid judgment in these appeals, Mr. Mahendra Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of haryana, vehemently contends that the decisions of this Court on which the High Court has relied upon, clearly envisage that there should be a parity in the scale of pay and the dearness allowance, but other incentives, which are granted to the government servants or teachers of Government schools, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the form of parity by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work". According to Mr. Anand, all the aforesaid four circulars were in the nature of incentives to the government servants to ameliorate the grievances of stagnation at a particular stage and, therefore, the High Court was in error in granting the relief sought for in the writ petition. Mr. Pankaj Kaira, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the decisions of this Court in the cases referred to above, the conclusion is irresistible that the teachers of private schools would be entitled to the same scale of pay and other allowances. According to Mr. Kaira, the aforesaid circulars, in fact, are in the nature of a higher scale of pay and not as an incentive, as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State.