GULSHAN LAL AUL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were emploved before 19th February 1979 in the various privately managed aided schools in the State of Punjab and have the qualifications of MA/M.Sc/M.Ed. and BT/B.Ed./DPE etc. having acquired the same other before entering into the service or thereafter, claim that they are entitled to parity in their pay scales with their counterparts working as Masters/Mistresses in the Govt. Schools, the petitioners have relied upon the instructions of the State of Punjab dated 23rd July, 1957, Annexure P-1 to the petition, in which it had been provided that all the teachers working in the Education Department of the State would be entitled to the pay scales given in the annexure based on the qualifications acquired or possessed by them irrespective of the post that they were holding. At the decision of the State Government Annexure P.1 was not being implemented by the State Government itself the matter was taken to this court by some teachers and decided in their favour vide the judgment reported as Kirpal Singh Bhatia V/s. Union of India and others, 1970 Current Law Journal Bill. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court as also by the Supreme Court. A number of subsequent litigations also resulted in the grant of higher pay scales on the basis of the higher qualifications with respect to other categories of teachers/masters/mistresses mentioned in Annexure P-l. On September 1, 1960 (Annexure P02) the State of Punjab issued Memo. No.4682-Ed-III(2)60/32640 taking a decision to grant advance increments to those masters working in the Punjab Education Department who had already improved or would later improve their qualifications by securing post- graduate qualifications. In compliance with this decision the masters working in the government schools who possessed the aforesaid qualifications before September 1, 1960 were given the benefit of Annexures P-l and P-2 whereas those teachers/masters who had secured the qualifications after the above-mentioned date were denied this benefit. The State Government thereafter granted the benefit of advance increments to various other categories of teachers as well, but on 19th February, 1979 issued Annexure P-3 whereby a decision was taken that the benefit of higher pay scales be given to those teachers who had acquired/improved higher qualifications before 19th February, 1979 but this benefit would henceforth not be allowed to those who improved their qualifications or were appointed after that date. It appears that despite the instructions Annexure P.3 the various post graduate masters working in various schools were denied the benefits of advance increments and the matter was ultimately taken to this Court in C.W.P. No.2632 of 1985 (Vidya Sagar Singla V/s. The State of Punjab and another) and vide judgment dated february 21, 1986 the Hon'ble Court directed the State of Punjab to give to the petitioners therein increments in terrns of the letters Annexures P-2 and P-3. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench and thereafter by the Supreme Court. It is the case of the petitioners that the privately managed recognised schools under which they were employed had been maintaining parity with their counterparts in the government schools in the matter of pay scales ever since 1967 on account of the report of the Kothari Commission which had been accepted by the Punjab Government as the grades recommended by the commission with effect from 1.11.66 were introduced by the Punjab Government in the government schools and as such these grades became ipso facto operative in the privately managed recognised schools on the grant-in-aid list in the State of Punjab with effect from 1.2.67. In support of this plea reliance has been placed on Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh Etc. V/s. State of Haryana, 1990 AIR(SC) 968The case of the petitioners further is that their claim to the advance increments envisaged by Annexures P.2 and P.3 now had statutory sanction in view of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for short the Act').

(2.) The respondent-State of Punjab has filed an affidavit (-sic-) the position set out by the petitioners. It has been admitted that the privately aided schools are entitled to reimbursement of 95 per cent of their budgetary deficit with regard to the posts that stood sanctioned up to a particular date, but it has been stated that the instructions of Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 were not applicable to the privately aided schools.

(3.) The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the two judgments referred to above, appears to be correct. In the first cited case the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court and held that on the acceptance of the recommendations of Kothari Commission, the revised scales of pay were required to be given even to the teachers employed in the privately aided schools and observed that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scales and dearness allowance as teachers in government schools for the entire period claimed by the petitioners, and that the expenditure on that account should be apportioned between the State and the Management in the same portion in which they share the burden of the existing emoluments of the teachers. It appears that there was some clarification needed on the order of the Supreme Court lowed the application ( HARYANA STATE ADHYAPAK SANGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 1990 AIR(SC) 968and directed, particularly in the light of the paragraph quoted above, that pay parity was to be maintained between the teachers of the privately aided schools and the teachers of the government schools. In the light of the above discussions, the question of pay parity sought to be justified on the basis of statutory sanction provided under section 7 of the Act need not be gone into.