NARESH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner is for quashing the impugned order (Annex P-9) at pag.34 to 35 of the paper-book passed by the Manager, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Kurukshetra (a Government aided institution). The claim of the petitioner for grant of master scale of Rs. 585-1050 and pay revision thereof with effect from the date of joining the school on July 17, 1985 and the pay scale attached to the post of Lecturer i.e. Rs. 2000-3500 and further revision thereof to Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f July 1, 1991 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had acquired higher qualification before joining service of the department. The circular dated July 23, 1957 was planned to encourage continuing in-service education to improve the quality of teaching services in an era when teachers were not easily available at entry points possessed of higher academic qualifications. The policy circular issued on July 23, 1957 in joint Punjab had granted the pay scale to the Masters/Mistress working in the grade Rs. 110-250 only and not to other teachers when the admitted position is that the petitioner applied and obtained job on the strength of higher qualifications possessed, then her pay has to be restricted to the pay scale prescribed at that time of appointment.

(2.) Ms.Shruti Jain Goyal refers to the Division Bench judgment in Vinod Bhagat & ors. v. State of Haryana & anr., 2004 3 SCT 526, which dealt with the provisions of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Services) Act, 1971 and the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the Punjab Government Education Department instructions dated July 23, 1957 . The Division Bench considered the further instructions as well of the Punjab Government dated September 1, 1960 in the context of the Punjab Government instructions dated July 23, 1957. The Division Bench applied the dicta of law of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Pushpa Devi v. State of Haryana, 2001 2 SCT 643. In the same line of reasoning in Pushpa Devi case, this Court in Vinod Bhagat categorically held that when pay scale of teachers is linked with qualifications as in the Punjab Government instructions dated July 23, 1957 then the Punjab Circular dated July 23, 1957 was in existence when the Legislature of Haryana enacted the 1971 Act and the State Government framed the rules in 1974. If the Legislature and its delegate wanted to confer the benefit of higher pay scale to the teachers of Private Aided Schools, who possessed qualifications higher than those prescribed for the post at the time of recruitment or acquired after joining service, they would have been incorporated the circular, or in the Act or the rules itself. But that was not done. Since the rules governing the service conditions have been framed, no earlier instructions or orders can add to the rules or to the cadre what is not provided in the rules. In Pushpa Devi's case it was held that those recruited, posted and working as JBT teachers cannot claim or be granted the pay scale of B.Ed., Lecturers or Head Teachers, merely because one acquires the B.Ed. qualification and nor would they become automatically entitled to higher scale of pay. The Division Bench of this Court noticed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Wazir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 1 SCT 431 to return its findings in the decision in Vinod Bhagat's case. It was pointed out in the judgment authored by S.S. Saron, J. that the law as has been succinctly enunciated in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment and which deserves to be quoted in extenso since such type of cases come up regularly for decision and therefore a revisit of the law stated is reinvigorated to be present for everyday application. The written word endures better when brought back from legal memory by repetition. It is best then to reiterate the law of the Division Bench as a ready reference to re-declare the law in determination of the same relief as sought in this case filed in 1999. It may be noted that the Division Bench inter alia applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Om Parkash, Kaushal, 1996 4 SCT 302 (SC) and also State of Punjab v. Narain Dass,1999 SCC(L&S) 932 apart from authority in Pushpa Devi case. Para 11 & 12 are reproduced as hereunder:-

(3.) The position in law was reaffirmed by the subsequent Division Bench in Rambir Sharma vs. State of Haryana & ors., CWP No.9220 of 2005, decided on February 21, 2006. The opinion of the Court in Vinod Bhagat's case and in Rambir Sharma was expressed by S.S. Saron, J speaking for the Division Bench and this Court and nothing more requires to be done in this case being covered by rule of stare decisis.