KIRPAL SINGH BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 21 in number, are teachers, who were employed in the erstwhile State of Pepsu before its merger with the State of Punjab with effect from November 1, 1956. Petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 9 were granted study leave under Rule 10.43 of the Pepsu Service Regulations while the other petitioners were granted leave due and admissible to them under the normal rules for acquiring the degree of Bachelor of Teaching. The petitioners, who were granted study leave had to furnish a bond undertaking to serve the State for at least, a period of ten years and if any teacher violated the terms of the bond or cut short his studies without permission of the State, he was liable to refund the study allowance and the pay drawn by him on study leave and to forfeit pension and gratuity due to him. Some of the petitioners passed the B.T. Examination before November 1, 1956, while others passed that examination thereafter. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that according to the practice prevalent in the erstwhile State of Pepsu, every teacher, on passing the B.T. Examination, was promoted to the rank of Master in the higher pay scale of Rs. 90-5-140, which was later revised to Rs. 110-250 and that this constituted a condition of their service, by virtue of which they were entitled to be promoted to the rank of Master in the pay-scale mentioned above, with effect from the date of their passing the B.T. Examination. This allegation is, however, denied in the written statement wherein it is mentioned that the erstwhile Pepsu government might have awarded B.T. grade to some teachers from the date of passing the B.T. Examination but this practice cannot be called a condition of service of the teachers of erstwhile Pepsu State that they would be awarded Master's grade from the date of passing B.T. Examination. According to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 , the conditions of service applicable to different employees on the appointed day, that is, November 1, 1956, were protected. Even, according to the petitioners, it was only a practice which was followed strictly and faithfully up to the year 1955, and was not followed thereafter with the result that those teachers who qualified in the year 1956 were not granted that benefit, in view of the impending integration of the States of Punjab and Pepsu. A practice in a department of the Government cannot be equated with the conditions of service and, therefore, the petitioners cannot base their claim to higher scale of pay with effect from passing the B.T. Examination on the basis of that practice. The provisions of Section 115(7) of the States Re-organisation Act do not help them in this behalf.

(2.) After the merger of the two States, the Punjab Government continued the practice of granting study leave to the teacher for acquiring the decree of Bachelor of Training, and, availing themselves of this facility, some of the petitioners obtained study leave in order to pass the B.T. Examination, but they were not given the higher scale of pay from the date they passed that examination, nor were they granted the Master's grade. They made various representations but without any result.

(3.) The conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by the Punjab Education Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules), Rule 7 of which prescribes the method of recruitment to the Service and reads as under :-