SH RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRACTICE adopted by various State Governments, and Government of Haryana is no exception to this practice, to grant relief only to those persons who approach the Court of law leads to avoidable litigation in the Courts. Those running Governments are wholly unmindful of indirect loss to the public exchequer caused due to this unsavoury practice. They do not realise the magnitude of injury which is suffered by the Society on account of filing of Court cases in relation to a subject matter which already stands decided not only by the High Courts but also by the highest judicial institution of the Country. Each petition/plaint presented in the Court consumes substantial amount of papers and the biggest source from which the paper is manufactured is forest wood. Consumption of papers in the Courts indirectly contributes to the consumption of forest and all must remember that future generation will not pardon us for our failure to protect the environment and ecology. These few words are as a reminder to those actively involved in the running of the Government of the State that once a judgment is rendered by a Court of law and particularly the High Court of the State and such judgment acquires finality, principles laid-down in that judgment should be applied unanimously to all persons similarly situated. Time has come when we must give a decent burial to the theory of litigious perseverance.

(2.) THIS is a clear illustration of the failure of the administrative authorities to give relief to similarly situated persons even after two judgments by the Apex Court and a host of other judgments by this Court on the point of entitlement of higher scale to the teachers on their acquiring additional/higher qualifications.

(3.) FOR the purpose of this decision, it is sufficient to make reference to the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 15630 of 1993. Petitioners joined service as Teachers in the Education Department and they acquired higher qualifications while in service. Petitioners have pleaded that with effect from the date of acquisition of higher qualifications, they are entitled to the benefit of revised grade with effect from 1. 1. 1986. They have made reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court in Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1987 (4) SLR 4; Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers Union v. State of Punjab, 1988 (1) S. L. R. 768; Jetha Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. , 1988 (4) S. L. R. 300; Nasib Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. , 1988 (4) S. L. R. 301; Civil Writ Petition No. 9999 of 1989, Meugh Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , decided on 26. 11. 1991; Civil Writ Petition No. 9568 of 1993, Ram Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , 6 decided on July 19,1994; Civil Writ Petition No. 16289 of 1993, Shakuntla Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , 7 decided on July 5,1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 4639 of 1993, Mohiuda Kathuria v. State of Haryana. 8 decided on 13. 1. 1994. Petitioners have also stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26. 11. 1991 in Megh Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana, the Director of Primary Education, Haryana, has issued order on 12. 2. 1993 and has given benefit to the petitioners in those cases.