RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a group of Masters totalling 28 in number, praying for a writ of mandamum, directing, the State of Haryana to grant them running scale of masters from the date of their original entry into Government service, as is being allowed to all other trained Masters. This-group falls into two categories one group of Masters who were originally appointed as untrained Masters, but subsequently qualified B.Ed. Examination and given the running scale of Masters and the second group who were employed as untrained Masters and did not qualify themselves for the B.Ed. Examination. The first group of Masters contended that though they were paid the salary as trained Masters from the date on which they passed the B.Ed. Examination, they are not given the same salary as trained Masters for the period prior to their qualifying the B.Ed. Degree. The other group of Masters claim that they are entitled to be paid the same running scale of Masters as trained Masters. Their claim is based on the ground that although they are untrained Masters, yet they do the same work or duty of trained Masters. On the principle of equal pay for equal work, they are eligible to be paid the same running scale of trained Masters. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon certain decisions of this Court and those of the Supreme Court. In Jeet Singh v. M.C.D., 1987 AIR(SC) 1781 the Supreme Court held that a person who was appointed temporarily is entitled to be paid the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. There can be no doubt that this decision is not applicable to the present case, because it cannot be contended that the work turned out by a trained teacher is the same as the work turned out by an untrained teacher. If the work is to be treated as equal, then there is no need for prescribing the necessary qualifications at all. A permanent employee and a temporary employee doing the same work may not be distinguished, but certainly there is a distinction so far as the work or duties of a trained and untrained teacher is concerned. It would be something like treating a Professor and a Lecturer, in a college, for the purpose of payment of salary on the ground that they give the same lecture on the same subject and, therefore, they have to be paid equal salary. If this principle is to be applied in respect of a trained and an untrained teacher, the decision in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 2049 related to the appointment of temporary Masters as in Jeet Singh's case , the same principles were laid down in this decision also, but as already stated, the question for determination is, whether the work is equal in order to get equal pay. As we said earlier, we are not satisfied that the teaching of a trained teacher can be said to be the same as that of an untrained teacher, for invoking of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. In the other unreported decision of the Supreme Court the Civil Appeals No. 31 and 32 of 1985, decided on 17th December, 1984, the situation was entirely different. A Single Judge of this Court in Tilak Raj, Math Master v. State of Punjab, C.W.P. 656 of 1977, decided on May 18th, 1977, held that the pay scale of a trained Master ought to be the same as that of an untrained Master. The State Government did not appeal against this decision and gave effect to that judgment in respect of certain untrained Masters. However, later a Division Bench of this Court in Shervinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, C.W.P. 3676 of 1977, decided on Sept. 12th, 1979,overruled the decision of the learned Single Judge and held that a trained Master and an untrained Master cannot be equated as doing equal work and that an untrained Master cannot be paid the same salary as of a trained Master. On the basis of this judgment, the State Government refused to give effect to Tilak Raj's case in respect of untrained Masters to whom the ratio of the judgement was not given effect to and that question arose only on the ground that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court accepted this contention so far as that group of untrained Masters are concerned on the ground that they, along with untrained Masters to whom the State Government gave effect formed one group and giving effect to one group and denying to the other, was not valid. We are unable to see how this judgement is relied upon by the learned counsel. In fact the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shervinder Kaur's case is against the contention of the learned counsel. That judgment has become final and it has not been appealed against and in a way, that being a Division Bench judgement, it is binding on us and therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that in this particular case, either of the groups of petitioners are entitled to be paid the same pay scales as trained Masters. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition allowed.