BALDEV RAJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are working as Masters in the Punjab Education Department. They had been originally appointed on ad hoc basis but their services were regularised after February 19, 1979. Vide orders dated July 23, 1957 the Government had decided that Masters possessing the qualification of MA/M.Sc. shall be entitled to the benefit of higher start. Later on, vide order dated September 1, 1960 it was decided that such Masters who passed M.A./M.Sc/M.Ed. examination in the First or Second Division were to get three advance increments while those who passed in the Third division were entitled to the benefits of two advance increments. The grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of advance increments has been illegally denied to them in spite of the various decisions of this Court. It has also been pointed out in the petition that the Director of Public Instruction (School) had issued instructions vide letter of February 4, 1987 in which it was, inter alia, prescribed as under :-

(2.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The sole question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioners can be denied the benefit of advance increments only on account of the fact that their services had been regularised after February, 1979. It has been categorically averred in the petition that the petitioners were working as Masters on ad hoc basis prior to February, 1979. They were paid salary in the same scale of pay as those appointed on regular basis. They were discharging the same duties. They were in no way different from the other members of the cadre. In this situation, there appears to be no justification whatsoever in treating the petitioners differently from the other members of the cadre. The action of the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) in imposing the condition of regular service vide orders of February 4, 1987 cannot be sustained. The purpose of the rule or instruction providing for the grant of advance increments is to compensate the teachers and other members of the service for their higher qualifications. For achieving this purpose, all persons discharging identical duties are entitled to parity of treatment. They cannot be treated differently on account of the fact that their services were regularised before or after February, 1979. The condition imposed on them has no rational relationship with the object compensating the teachers possessing higher qualifications. The condition, in my view, is violative of Article 14 and cannot be sustained.