MADAN GOPAL MEHTA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR MRS. PREM LATA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (since deceased) was initially appointed as a Social Studies Master on temporary basis w.e.f. 10.11.1961. His case was forwarded by the Education Department to the Subordinate Services Selection Board for the approval of his appointment on that post on a regular basis and after the approval had been received, he was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 10.3.1964. The petitioner's grievance is that though he has been appointed as Social Studies Master on regular basis, yet he was being paid a fixed salary and no increment etc. had been granted to him on the ground that he did not possess the requisite subject combination in his B.A. & B.Ed. courses. The present writ petition was filed way back in the year 1985 and it has been claimed that regular pay scales were to be granted on the ground that the Punjab Education Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called, the "Rules"), under which the petitioner had been appointed, provided for a qualification of B.A. B.Ed. simpliciter as the minimum qualification and did not visaulise or postulate any subject combination and as this requirement had been stipulated by executive instructions, it was not binding on the petitioner. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition the petitioner has made a specific averment to this effect.

(2.) A reply has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition. It has been admitted that the petitioner had been appointed on a regular basis after his appointment had been approved by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. It has further been averred (in paragraph 3 of the reply) that a condition had been imposed on the petitioner that he would be entitled to annual grade increments only after he had passed the additional subject in B.A. and had acquired the requisite qualifications (subject combination) for the course of Social Studies Master as prescribed by the Department, which condition had not been fulfilled by him. In reply to paras 17 and 20, it has once again been highlighted that the petitioner had not been given the requisite increment etc. as he did not possess the required subject combination in his B.A. course. It is, therefore, clear that the stand of the petitioner that he had been denied the benefit of annual increments in spite of having been on a regular post for the reason that he did not possess the subject combination which had been prescribed by executive instructions.

(3.) Ms. Alka Chatrath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the Rules envisaged that a Social Studies Master was to be a graduate with B.Ed. and as the petitioner fulfilled this qualification, the added stipulation of a subject combination was not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a Division Bench judgment of this court in Dharamvir v. State of Haryana and another,1996 1 RSJ 296 in support of her case.