# • v. KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND ORS. ETC - **Citation:** [1999] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 67 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1999-09-21 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 - **Bench:** M. Jagannadha Rao, M. Srinivasan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-kamal-singh-saharwat-and-ors-etc-16996 - **Pages:** 22 ## Headnote B Service law : Pay scale-Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in school~Acquiring post graduate qualifications-Claim for higher pay scale applicable to Lee- c turers without actually being appointed to that post-Entitlement of-Held, not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Leeturer~State Government pennitted to recover excess payments made-Contempt petition pending before High Court dismissed'-Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 195~Haryana State Education D Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. Respondents were working as teachers/Masters/Mistresses in different schools of appellant-State. On acquiring post graduate qualifications while in service, they claimed higher pay scales avplicable to Lecturers without actually appointed to that post. They placed reliance E upon the Govt. Letters/Circulars dated 23.7.1957 and 5.1.1968. In the writ petition before the High Court as parties agreed that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case, an order was passed in terms of the ratio given in that case. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, filed a contempt petition before the High Court for non-payment of pay scales applicable to leeF turers. Appellants instead of contesting the said contempt petition, filed the present appeal. Several writ petitions filed by similarly placed teachers were dismissed by High Court negativing their claim. SLPs were preferred against those orders also. Disposing of the appeals, the Court G f HELD : 1. The Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in different schools in appellant State are not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Lecturers on acquiring post graduate qualifications without being appointed as Lecturers. [85-E] H 67 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Gurpal Tuli & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1984) Supp SCC 716; Baij Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1976] 8 SCC 516; Wazir Singh !BT Teacher and Qrs., v. State of Haryana though its Secretary, Education Department & Ors., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 697 and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ravi Bala & Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 267, relied on. B State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 7 40; referred to. Punjab Higher Qualified Teacher 'Union & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc., [1988) 2 SCC 407; Chaman Lal & Ors. Etc. v. C State of Haryana Etc., [1987] 2 SCC 113; Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and Haryana P. 246; distinguished. 2. Before reorganisation of State, school teachers in State of Punjab were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955. Appendix 'A' of the s~id Rule setting out the designation of D posts did not refer to any post designated as Lecturers. The post of lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets of rules and never by the 1955 Rules or the amendments thereto. In the letter dated 23.7.1957, ·issued by the Government regarding pay revision, there is no reference to the post to lecturer as there was no such post in the school E cadre at that time. After reorganisation, appellant State accepting the recommendations of "Kothari Commission", revised the pay scales of teachers vide its letter dated 5.1.1968. There is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to the 1955 Rules. There is nothing in the letter to show that the _teachers were automatically entitled to became lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay F applicable to the lecturers. Thus, a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to time and the subsequent Government policy letters and circulars show that the teachers are not entitled to higher pay scales applicabl~ to the post of lecturers. [73-F; 74-G; 76-G; 77-B-C; 78-E) G 3. The Full Bench in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case had no occasion to con ## Text _Characters 0–39,955 of 50,155. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._ ' .• THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. A • v. KAMAL SINGH SAHARWAT AND ORS. ETC. SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B Service law : Pay scale-Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in school~Acquiring post graduate qualifications-Claim for higher pay scale applicable to Lee- c turers without actually being appointed to that post-Entitlement of-Held, not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Leeturer~State Government pennitted to recover excess payments made-Contempt petition pending before High Court dismissed'-Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 195~Haryana State Education D Lecturer School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998. Respondents were working as teachers/Masters/Mistresses in different schools of appellant-State. On acquiring post graduate qualifications while in service, they claimed higher pay scales avplicable to Lecturers without actually appointed to that post. They placed reliance E upon the Govt. Letters/Circulars dated 23.7.1957 and 5.1.1968. In the writ petition before the High Court as parties agreed that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case, an order was passed in terms of the ratio given in that case. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, filed a contempt petition before the High Court for non-payment of pay scales applicable to leeF turers. Appellants instead of contesting the said contempt petition, filed the present appeal. Several writ petitions filed by similarly placed teachers were dismissed by High Court negativing their claim. SLPs were preferred against those orders also. Disposing of the appeals, the Court G f HELD : 1. The Teachers/Masters/Mistresses working in different schools in appellant State are not automatically entitled to claim higher pay scales applicable to Lecturers on acquiring post graduate qualifications without being appointed as Lecturers. [85-E] H 67 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Gurpal Tuli & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1984) Supp SCC 716; Baij Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1976] 8 SCC 516; Wazir Singh !BT Teacher and Qrs., v. State of Haryana though its Secretary, Education Department & Ors., [1995) Supp 3 SCC 697 and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ravi Bala & Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 267, relied on. B State of Punjab & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 7 40; referred to. Punjab Higher Qualified Teacher 'Union & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc., [1988) 2 SCC 407; Chaman Lal & Ors. Etc. v. C State of Haryana Etc., [1987] 2 SCC 113; Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and Haryana P. 246; distinguished. 2. Before reorganisation of State, school teachers in State of Punjab were governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules, 1955. Appendix 'A' of the s~id Rule setting out the designation of D posts did not refer to any post designated as Lecturers. The post of lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets of rules and never by the 1955 Rules or the amendments thereto. In the letter dated 23.7.1957, ·issued by the Government regarding pay revision, there is no reference to the post to lecturer as there was no such post in the school E cadre at that time. After reorganisation, appellant State accepting the recommendations of "Kothari Commission", revised the pay scales of teachers vide its letter dated 5.1.1968. There is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to the 1955 Rules. There is nothing in the letter to show that the _teachers were automatically entitled to became lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay F applicable to the lecturers. Thus, a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to time and the subsequent Government policy letters and circulars show that the teachers are not entitled to higher pay scales applicabl~ to the post of lecturers. [73-F; 74-G; 76-G; 77-B-C; 78-E) G 3. The Full Bench in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna* case had no occasion to consider the question whether the teachers would be entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the lecturers automatically on their acquiring post graduate qualifications. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be contended that the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench was that those who H had acquired post graduate qualifications were automatically entitled to .. \ 1 ) J STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT(SRINIVASAN,J.) 69 ;: pay scales of lecturers. [86-C] *Bhagwan Dutt Shanna v. State of Haryana, ILR (1988) 2 Punjab and Haryana P. 246; distinguished. 4. The contempt petition before the High Court was on the face of it without any merit and there· was no justification for the High Court in issuing notice on the said petition for contempt. Since the appeal has been pending from 1990, no purpose will be served by taking a technical view of the matter and directing the appellants to appear before the .High Court and contest the proceeding in contempt. Thus, the contempt petition pending before High Court is dismissed. [86-G-H; 87-A; HJ 5. The State of Government is entitled to recover from respondent no. 1 and such other persons to whom higher pay scales applicable to lec.turers were paid for which they were not entitled to. [87 -F -G] A B c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990. I> WITH S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10080/95, 1008-11/98, 944-951/98, 1000/98, 1002/98,. 1005-06/98, 1003-04/98 and C.A. No. 2104/98. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.88 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 7122 of 1988. E M.L. Verma, Jasbir Malik, Mahabir Singh, Ms. Shubra Kapur, Sanjay Kapur, Pankaj Katra, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Ranbir Yadav1 Prem Malhotra, T.C. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. K. Sharda Devi and F C.S. Ashri for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIVASAN, J. I. Factual canvas The earliest appeal in this Batch was filed by the State of Haryana G and The Director of Public Instructions, Haryana. The appeal came to be filed in this Court in somewhat peculiar circumstances. The order of the High Court against which the appeal was filed was passed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 3rd December, 1988 in C.W.P. 7122/88 on the basis of consent of counsel on both sides. The order was H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A in the following terms : B "The parties' counsel agree that this petition is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Bhagwan Dutt Shanna and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., I.L.R. (1988) Vol. II Punjab 246. There will be an order in terms of the ratio given in that case." 2. The said writ petition was filed in the High Court by the respondents in the appeal. They were working as Teachers/Masters/ Mistresses in different schools of Haryana. They had acquired post graduate qualificaC tions while in service. The relevant particulars were given by them in the Writ Petition. According to them, the erstwhile State of Punjab had issued a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 raising the pay scales of the teachers w.e.f. 1st May, 1957 and that it was decided that the teachers would be entitled to pay scales according to qualifications possessed by them irrespective of the post held by them. It was their case that the policy decision of the D Punjab Government was adopted by the Haryana Government after it was formed. The latter issued an order directi,1g further revision of the scales of pay of teachers working in Government schools in 1968. Reliance was placed by the writ petitioners on the recommendations contained in the report of Kothari Commission which has been accepted by the Government. The writ petitioners referred to the judgment of this Court in E Chaman Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [1987] 3 SCC 113 and stated that they were entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on the basis of their qualifications as they had become post graduates. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners in accordance with Annexures P-1 and P-2 to the writ petition on the basis of higher F qualification and also in view of the judgment of this Court in Chaman Lat's Case and also for release of consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay, arrears etc. alongwith 12% interest. 3. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants in the appeal. G When it was taken up for hearing, the counsel on both sides agreed that the matter was covered by the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna's Case I.L.R. 1988 Vol. II Punjab 248. Hence the High Court passed the order as stated above. 4. Thereafter the first petitioner in the writ petition filed a petition H for contempt to punish the appellants in the appeal for not paying the writ - STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT(SRINIVASAN,J.] 71 ' petitioners as per the pay scale applicable to lecturers. Th~ High Court issued notice on the application for contempt On receipt of such notice, the Government and The Director of Public Instructions thought fit to file a petition for Special Leave. in this Court along With an application for condonation of delay in presentation of the same. Obviously, the Government assumed that because the High Court had issued notice in the proceedings of contempt, orders would be passed against it in those proceedings and instead of contesting the same, the Government presented the petition for Special Leave in this Court. The delay was condoned by order dated 17th August, 1990 and leave was granted. In the application for stay, this Court passed the following order : "After hearing both counsel, we are of the opinion that there should be no stay of the High Court's orders so far as this petition is concerned. If, however, the State ultimately succeeds , it will be entitled to appropriate relief." 5. Though, this Court refused to grant stay, it is .admitted before us by counsel on both sides that the petitioner in the contempt petition is the only person to whom higher pay on the scale of pay applicable to lecturers was being paid and to all other persons, salary was paid only on. the pay scale applicable to masters and not lecturers. 6. The contention of the Government in the appeal is that before the High Court, counsel had only admitted that the matter was governed by the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna's case and the said judgment did not hold that the teachers were entitled to get higher pay on pay scales applicable to le~turers. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment had only decided that the petitioners in the case before the Full Bench were entitled to masters' pay from the date they acquired the higher qualifications. According to learned counsel, the judgment of the Full Bench can never be understood to hold that teachers who had acquired post graduate qualifications were entitled to A B c D E F the scales of pay applicable to lecturers. G 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/ respondents in the appeal contended that the last sentence in the order of , the High Court made it clear that the order in the writ petition was in terms of the ratio given in Bhagwan Dutt Shanna's case. According to learned H 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. · · A counsel for the writ petitioners, the ratio in Bhagwan Dutt Sharma's case was that the pay of the teachers was linked to their qualifications. It was argued that the principle of pay being linked to qualification as recommended in Kothari Commission report was accepted by the Government and implemented in the Circular dated 5th January, 1968. B Hence, the writ petitioners were, according to him, entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers as they had acquired postgraduate qualifications which were the qualifications prescribed for lecturers. 8. Our attention was drawn by Counsel on both sides to the Government Circulars issued from time to time as well as Rules which governed C the education service in 1957. Counsel on both sides referred in detail to various judgments of this Court considering the Government Circulars and the Rules. 9. Subsequent to the judgment in CWP 7122 of 1988, the High Court D had occasion to consider the same question in several other writ petitions filed by similarly placed teachers. By a detailed judgment dated 5th June, 1990 in Bachan Lal Lahori v. State of Haryana, in CWP, 770 of 1989, the High Court negatived the claim of the teachers that they were entitled to the pay scales applicable to lecturers. That judgment was rendered in a E batch of cases and S.L.P. 1005-06 of 1998 have been fi.led against the order in CWP 374 of 1989 and 1039 of 1989 which were in that batch. It appears that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High court in Bachan Lal case. 10. In CWP 6045of1989, the High Court passed an order on 11/7/91 F following the ruling in Bachan Lal's Case and dismissing the writ petition against which S.L.P. 1002 of 1998 has been filed. Against similar judgment dated 15th October, 1993 in CWP 1119 of 1989 and 11394 of 1988, S.L.P Nos. 10080 of 1995 and 1000 of 1998 have been filed. G 11. On 2.8.1995, the High Court passed a detailed order in CWP 6478 of 1995 (Tilak Raj Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana) reiterating the order in Bachan Lat's case. S.L.P. 1003-04 of 1998 have been filed against the said judgment and the judgment in CWP 6477 of 1995. Another judgment was rendered on 13th February, 1997 in CWP 17192 of 1996 H following the judgment in Tilak Raj Gupta's case. Against that, Civil >. STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN,J.] 73 Appeal No. 2104 of 1998 has been preferred. A -· 12. Just as the first petitioner in CWP 7122 of 1988 filed a petition for punishing the Government and the officials for contempt, several other teachers also filed applications for punishing the Government and the officials for contempt. Some of the teachers filed proceedings for execution B of the orders in the writ petitions. The proceedings in contempt were also treated as execution proceedings. All such proceedings were dismissed by orders dated 21st May, 1997. Against the said orders, the aggrieved teachers have filed S.L.Ps. No. 944-51 of 1998 ;md S.L.P. Nos. 1008-1011 of 1998. As the question involved in all these proceedings is the same, they were heard together. c II Common Question i3. The common question which arises for decision in all these matters is whether the teachers/masters/mistresses working in different D schools in the State of Haryana are automatically entitled to the higher scales of pay applicable to lecturers on and from the date of their acquiring the academic qualifications (Post Graduation) prescribed for the post of "Lecturer". Some teachers are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4304/98 filed by the State of Haryana while several groups of teachers are E petitioners in SLPs referred to above. and appellants in Civil Appeal No.2104/98. It is better that in the first instance we advert to the relevant rules and circulars in order to answer the question raised. III Service Rules, Government Circulars and Policy Letters F 14. Before the formation of the State of Haryana in 1966, the position of the teachers in the schools in Punjab was governed by the Punjab Educational Service, Class III, School Cadre Rules,1955. They were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Punjab. The expression 'Service' was defined to mean the Punjab Educational G Service, Class III - School Cadre. Rule 10 read that members of the service would be entitled to such scales of pay as may be authorized by the Government from time to time and the scales of pay the~ in force as ....., specified in Appendix "A" against each post. Appendix "A" set out the ~ number of sanctioned posts (permanent and temporary), scale of pay and , the designation of posts. The column setting out the designation of the post H 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A referred only to Head-masters, Masters, Science Masters, Agricultural Masters, Language teachers, Art and Craft teachers in the Men's Branch and similarly Head Mistress, Mistresses, Language teachers etc. in the Women's Branch. What is to be noted is that Appendix "A" did not refer to any post designated as lecturer. B 15. It is not in dispute that for the first time in 1963-64, the posts of lecturers in the school cadre were created when Higher Secondary schools were established. Before that, there were only three types of schools, namely, primary upto 4th class, middle upto 8th class and High School upto 10th class. When the category of Higher Secondary schools upto 11th class C was introduced, the posts of lecturers were also created. The scales of pay for the posts of lecturers and the qualifications prescribed for the same were fixed by Executive instructions as they were not governed by the Punjab Educational Service Rules referred to above. Till 1.2.1983 there · were two scales of pay for lecturers - one being lower for those who had D passed M.A./M.Sc in 3rd Division and the other being higher for those who had passed M.A./M.Sc in 1st and 2nd Division. The two scales were later · revised from 1.2.1983 when it was decided that only persons with M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. in 1st or 2nd Division would be appointed as Lecturers. With effect from 19.3.1985 it was further decided that only persons with at least 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. would be appointed as E Lecturers. That is evident from a copy of the letter No.15/38-05- E-43 dated 1.5.85 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana to all Sub-divisions in the State (vide Page 69 in Vol. II in C.A. 4304/90). Subsequently, in 1998" the Governor of Haryana framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution known as "Haryana State Education Lecturer F School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules 1998" regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana State School Education Lecturers School Cadre. Thus it is seen that the post of Lecturer was never governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules and was always governed by a separate set .of rules. As stated earlier, Appendix "A" to the Punjab Educational Service Class III School G Cadre Rules did not include the post of Lecturer at any time. 16. Strong reliance is placed by the teachers upon the letter dated 23.7.19S7 issued .by the Government of Punjab before State Re-organization. That letter was issued by the Government after H considering the recommendations made by the Pay Revision Committee - - STATE v. K.S. Sf'.HARWAT [SRINIVASAN, J.] 75 . appointed to examine the revision of scales of pay of the subordinate A services and removal of anomalies occasioned by the piecemeal revision of scales of pay of certain classes of the non-gazetted Government servants. According to the said letter it was decided that existing scales of pay of certain categories of posts should with effect from 1st May 1957 be revised as shown in the statement enclosed. Paragraph 3 of the letter pertained to B teachers in the Education Department. 17. The relevant part .bf the letter reads thus : "It has been decided that all teachers according to their qualifications should be placed in the following two broad categories: C Category 'A' B.A./B.Sc./B.Com/B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.T./Diploma m Physical Education/Diploma in Senior Basic Training. Category 'B' Group I Matrics with ASIC training (including J.S.Ts). Group II J.S.Ts (including Assistant Mistresses with B.A. inter Matric Plus J.A.V. Training. ·Group III (I) Shastri es : (ii) Gianis, Prabhakar, Drawing Masters and Craftsman Certificate Holders (iii) Munshi Fazils (iv) S.Ts including S.Vs with training in Physical Education. Group IV: Untrained teachers with qualification like B.Coms, D E F B.Sc. (Agriculture) etc. G In addition there are similar categories of special posts, such as Headmasters/Headmistresses/District Inspectors/lnspectoresses of schcols, with qualifications of category 'A' above. Teachers in these categories, regardless of men and women H 76 A B c D SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. cadres, should carry the following scale of pay : Category 'A' Rs.110-8-190/10-250, with higher start for M.A. or M.Sc as at present. The existing percentage of posts fixed by Government for the scale of Rs.110-8-190-10-250 and Rs.250-10300 should remain unchanged at 85% and 15% respectively. Category 'B' Lower Rs.60-4-80-5-120 Middle Rs.120-5-175 Upper Rs.140-10-250 With a view to providing incentives, it has been decided that posts falling in these groups should be in the following percentages : Group I Lower Scale - 85% Middle Scale - 15% 15% of teachers in this group should straight away be promoted to the middle scale by selection based on seniority and merit, while the rest should be given the lower scale.' E 18. There is no reference in the letter to the post of Lecturer as there F was no such post in the school cadre at that time. 19. With effect from 1.11.1966, the State of Haryana came into existence. Earlier there was an Education Commission popularly known as "Kothari Commission" at the national level which made recommendations regarding further revision of pay scales of teachers who were divided into several categories. The basis for classifications adopted by the Commission was academic qualifications. The recommendations of the Kothari Commission were mostly accepted by the State of Haryana. The pay scales of teachers were revised and the decision of the Government was contained G in letter No.152-Edu.II-68/540 dated 5th January 1968 from the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department, Chandigarh to the Director of Public Instruction, Haryana, Chandigarh. The letter also fixed the percentage in which various incumbents were to be divided for purposes of higher scale or the lower scale as mentioned in the letter. H Column II referred to the category of teachers and Column III set out the "'- STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN,J.] 77 revised grades. SI. No.l pertains to J.B.T./J.S.T./J.A.V. etc. SI.• No.2 A pertains to Masters/Mistresses (Trained Graduates). SI. N o.3 relates to Lecturers (Post Graduates). The N.B. reads : "The lecturers will be given one advance increment as soon as they attain professional training". SI. No. 4 refers to Head masters/Headmistresses etc. There is nothing in the said letter to show that the post of Lecturers was included in Appendix 'A' to B the Punjab Educational Service Rules or that it came to be governed by the said Rules. The letter refers merely to revision of scales of pay and does not set out the method of recruitment or conditions of service. There is nothing in the letter to show that the categories of teachers set out in SI. No. 1 and SI. No. 2 were automatically entitled to become lecturers or entitled to the scales of pay applicable to the lecturers. 20. It may be mentioned here that there was an earlier letter issued c by the Punjab Government on 29.7.1967 revising the pay scales of the teaching personnel of Government Schools in the State of Punjab w.e.f. 1.11.1966 after consideration of the recommendations made by the Kothari D Commission. Though the said letter is not applicable to the teachers in the present case, reference has been made to the same and reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in which the said letter was considered. We will advert to that decision later and it is unnecessary for us to dilate any further on the letter of the Punjab Government dated 29.7.1967. E 21. Learned counsel appearing for some of the teachers placed before us policy letters dated 19.2.1979 and 20.9.1979 issued by the Government of Punjab and wanted to draw inference therefrom that the principle of pay being linked to qualifications as recommended by Kothari Commission's report has been implemented in the State of Punjab and the same inference should be drawn with reference to the State of Haryana also. We are unable to accept that contention. F 22. Insofar as the State of Haryana is concerned, one other letter has been placed before us by the counsel for the State Government viz. Jetter G No.7/2(1)/90-4 FR-I Dated, Chandigarh, the 9th March1990 sent by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance Department to the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Education Department. That Jetter makes a reference to the Circular Jetter dated 23rd July 1957 issued by the Punjab Government to which we have H 78 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A already adverted in detail. The letter makes also reference to the , subsequent letter dated. 5.1.1968 which has also been referred to by us earlier. Reference has been made. to subsequent Notification No. GSR20/Const/Art/309/89 dated 29th February, 1980 by virtue of which the letter dated 5.1.68' stood inoperative automatically. It is seen from the said letter B that the Haryana Government had revised the pay scales further under Notification No. GSR- 20/Const/Art/309/87 dated 29.4.87 with effect from 1986. Ultimately, the letter clarifies that the teachers in the Education Department in the State of Haryana were not entitled to be placed in the higher scales of pay in terms of Para 3 of the Punjab Government letter C · dated·23rdJuly 1957 or any subsequent letter or Notification issued by the Haryana Government referred to therein which had become inoperative. The last sentence in Para 6 of the letter reads as follows : ,"The masters/teachers in the Education Department will be placed in the sc_ales of pay of their respective categories to which they are D appointed against the sanctioned posts and mere possessing/acquiring of higher qualifications will not entitle them automatically to claim higher pay scales" 23. Thus a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to time and the E subsequent Government policy letters and circulars show that the teachers are not entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to the posts of lecturers automatically on their acquiring post graduate qualifications or such qualifications as are prescribed for the post of lecturers. We have already pointed out that .the post of lecturers has throughout been governed by F different sets of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the common question raised in these matters has to be answered in the negativ¢. against the teachers/masters/mistresses some of whom are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4304 of 1990 and the others being petitioners in S:L.Ps and appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2104/98. . · G IV Rulings refemd to by Counsel on both sides. · 24. Some. of the judgments cited relate to teachers in the State of Punjab and others relate to teachers in the State of Haryana. We think it H better to refer to cases relating to the teachers in the two States separately. ,.. J STATE v. K.S. SAHARWAT [SRINIVASAN, J.] 79 We should not be understood as holding that the position in the State of A Punjab is different from the position in the State of Haryana. It may happen · to be the same but . we do not express any opinion in this case on the situation prevailing in the State of Pm;ijab. We are concerned here only with the teachers in the State of Haryana. In order to appreciate the ratio of the rulings relied on py, counsel on both sides, we refer to the cases relating to the teachers in the State of Punjab separately and the cases relating to teachers in the State of Haryana separately. A Cases relating to teachers in the State of Punjab7 B 25. The earliest case arose with reference to the composite State of C Punjab before the Re-organization. In that case, the Government letter dated 23.7.1957 to which we have made reference in extenso earlier was considered. It cannot be disputed that the principle laid down in that case will apply. equally to the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana insofar as the interpretation of the Government letter dated· 23.7.1957 is concerned. ]) (i) Kirpal Singh (1975] 4 S.C.C. 740 26. The case was reported as State of Punjab and Another v. Kirpal Singh Bhatia and Others, (1975] 4 S.C.C 740. The respondents in that case E were teachers in the former State of Pepsu which merged in the State of Punjab on 1.11.1956. The teachers claimed revised scales of pay as. well as the posts of Masters on the grounds that they had taken degrees in Bachelor of Teaching or its equivalent and that the Government letter dated 23.7.1957 entitled them to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25% of the vacancies. The High Court accepted the contention of the teachers F and upheld their claim. The appeal filed by the State of J'unjab was dismissed by this Court which agreed with the ~ew taken by the High Court: After referring to the Government letter dated 23.7.57 in detail, this Court referred also to Rules 7 and 10 of the Punjab Educational· Service, Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 which provided method of recruitment G and the entitlement to such scales of pay as may be authorized by the Government from time to time. This Court held that the higher scale of pay was effective either from the date when the teachers passed the examination of Bachelor of Training or its equivalent or 1.5.57 whichever was later. Referring to a letter dated 7.11.58, this Court observed that the H 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A teachers could not claim vacancies by promotion exceeding 25% and their claim for appointment by promotion had to take into consideration not merely their seniority but also their merit. The Court pointed out that while the earlier letter dated July 23, 1957 fixed the scales of pay on the basis of the academic qualification, the subsequent letter dated November 7, 1958 B recognized the right of promotion to the posts of Masters to the extent of 25%. (ii) Gurpal Tuli (1984] (Supp.) S.C.C. 716 C 27. The next case relating to Punjab schools was Gurpal Tuli and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1984] Supp S.C.C. 716. This Court considered the Circular letter dated 29.7.67 issued by the State of Punjab giving effect to the recommendations ·of the Kothari Commission from 1.11.1966 in respect of teachers in Government schools. Paragraph 2 of the D Circular letter referred to lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools etc. and it was specified that the number of posts in the Lecturers' Grade would be 1571 i.e. 742 posts for the existing school Lecturers and 829 additional posts for other Masters/Mistresses with post graduate qualifications. The appellants before this Court contended that they were employed as Masters and Mistresses in Higher Secondary Schools run by the Punjab Government E and possessed post graduate qualifications. They claimed that they were entitled to either of the higher grades set forth in paragraph 2 of the said letter dated 29.7.67 pertaining to lecturers. This Court negatived their contention and observed : "From what has gone before it is clear that they can legitimately claim the benefit of those grades only if they are appointed F to the posts of Lecturer. And they do not dispute that they are not incumbents of those posts". The appellants in that case placed reliance on the judgment in State of Punjab and Another v. Kirpa/ Singh Bhatia and Others, (1975] 4 S.C.C. 740 (Supra) but this Court held that it was of no assistance to the appellants. The contention of the appellants that on the G principle of "equal pay for equal work" they were entitled to the grades applicable to the lecturers, this Court held that the grades specified in Paragraph 2 of the circular letter dated 29.7.67 were applicable only to those who specifically held the posts of lecturers. Thus the contention of the teachers that they were entitled to the scales of pay applicable to lecturers on their acquiring post graduate qualifications or the qualificaH tions prescribed for the post of lecturers was expressly negatived. STATEv. K.S. SAHARWAT (SRINIVASAN,J.] 81 (iii) Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers, Union [1988] 2 S.C.C. 407 28. The third ruling was Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers' Uniion and Others Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab and Others Etc. Etc., (1988] 2 S.C.C. 407. The only controversy in that case was whether JBT teachers falling under Category 'B' Group-II were not entitled to higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualifications of B.A. , B.T./B.A./B.Ed etc. but that gaining professional experience of JST/JAV was essenti