SATYA VIR SINGH PTI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is illustrative of the sufferance of a poor citizen of this country. In the first instance he has been forced by the respondents to file this writ petition because they did not honour his constitutional right of equality. Secondly, he has been abandoned by his counsel, who has not thought it proper to appear when the case was called for hearing. Whether this is justified or not is a matter which I leave to the learned counsel to decide. However, keeping in view the constitutional duty of a Court to do justice between the parties and also keeping in view the fact that the accountability of the judicial system is to the people of the country and hot to the members belonging to the legal profession, I have considered the claim made by the petitioner on its merit despite the absence of his Advocate.

(2.) Facts of the case show that the petitioner joined service as a Physical Training Instructor on 2.5.1971. He passed D.P.Ed. and M.A. in July, 1974 and July, 1975, respectively. After having acquired higher training and academic qualification, the petitioner made a claim for being granted the benefit of higher pay and has pleaded that despite the judgments of this court and the Supreme Court, the respondents have failed to give him relief by way of fixation of his pay in the higher scale in accordance with his higher academic and training qualifications. He has relied on the Government's letter dated 23.7.1957 which was issued by the Government of Punjab and which was adopted by the Government of Haryana.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the policy decision contained in letter dated 23.7.1957 was followed till 30.11.1967. Thereafter the grades were revised and with effect from 1.12.1967 benefit of higher grade is not admissible on the basis of higher qualifications. It has been pleaded by the respondents that the Supreme Court's decision in Chaman Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1987 4 SLR 4, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.