STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. Factual canvas

(2.) The said writ petition was filed in the High Court by the respondents in the appeal. They were working as Teachers/Masters/Mistresses in different schools of Haryana. They had acquired post-graduate qualification while in service. The relevant particulars were given by them in the Writ Petition. According to them, the erstwhile State of Punjab had issued a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 raising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f. 1st May, 1957 and that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled to pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them irrespective of the post held by them. It was their case that the policy decision of the Punjab Government was adopted by the Haryana Government after it was formed. The latter issued an order directing further revision of the scales of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968. Reliance was placed by the writ petitioners on the recommendations contained in the report of Kothari Commission which has been accepted by the Government. The writ petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in Chaman Lal v. State of Haryana, (1987) 3 SCC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 1621 : (1987 Lab IC 1299) and stated that they were entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to Lecturers on the basis of their qualifications as they had become post-graduates. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners in accordance with Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition on the basis of higher qualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court in Chaman Lal's case and also for release of consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay, arrears etc. along with 12% interest.

(3.) The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in the appeal. When it was taken up for hearing, the counsel on both sides agreed that the matter was covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Sharma's case, ILR (1988) 2 Punj and Har 248. Hence the High Court passed the order as stated above.