GURDAS SINGH & ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Tags Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6691-6692 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 01, 2015

‘Reportable’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6691-6692 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.17176-17177 of 2013)

Gurdas Singh and others etc. …..Appellant(s)
versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondent(s)

with

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6693-6694 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8082-8083 of 2014)

Dev Raj Kashyap and another ….Appellant(s)

versus

State of Punjab and others ..Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment and
order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA
Nos.76 and 78 of 2012, whereby Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the appellants-teachers upholding
the decision of the learned Single Judge who disposed of their writ
petitions with certain directions.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that various writ petitions at the
instance of teachers of two of the Sanskrit Institutes at Patiala and Nabha
were filed, which were clubbed and segregated by the learned Single Judge
under two heads. First, the cases in the nature of public interest that
were filed by the affected teachers themselves that the Sanskrit
Mahavidyalya, Patiala and Sanskrit Institute at Nabha shall not be brought
down to the level of school since they conduct courses at par with colleges
beyond the level of matriculation and that the institutes shall be run with
teachers of college cadre. Secondly, the claims at the instance of the
teachers that they are entitled to the scales of pay commensurate with the
Lecturers and Professors of colleges since the syllabi for the courses are
approved by the Punjabi University at Patiala and the qualifications for
teachers are as prescribed by the University.

4. The common ground for all the teachers, who have filed various writ
petitions, is that in a suit filed by one Acharya Lekh Ram Dixit against
State of Punjab, when he was sought to be transferred from the Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya, Patiala to a school, he claimed relief of restraint order on
the ground that the institute was equivalent to a college and any such
transfer would not be permissible. The Court accepted the contention and
decreed the suit and also held that he would be entitled to the scale of
pay of a Lecturer in colleges. This was the central plank on which several
teachers working in these two institutes claimed the same relief.

5. The factual background of the matter, as pleaded before the learned
Single Judge, is that the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Patiala is reported to
have come into existence in the Patiala State for imparting education in
the classical language of Sanskrit in the year 1860. Later English and
Mathematics languages had been introduced in the year 1862 and in 1870, the
Maharaja of Patiala created an Education Department and the institute was
affiliated to the Calcutta University in the year 1874. The Viceroy of
India Lord North Brooke laid the foundation stone of Mahindra College
Patiala and Lord Rippon inaugurated the college building in the year 1884.
The courses offered at the Mahavidyalaya were Shastri, Vishara, Prajana all
in Sanskrit and Gyani, Vidwan and Budhiman all in Punjabi. The classes in
Sanskrit and Punjabi were separated from the college and moved to the
separate institutions in the name of Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Gurmukhi
Vidyalaya, Patiala in 1912. These two Vidyalayas were amalgamated in 1963
and a new institution namely the Government Institute of Classical and
Modern Indian Language(MIL), Patiala was established. The Punjabi
University at Patiala laid down the qualification of teaching staff of the
affiliated institution for Oriental Titled (OT) and MIL examination. For
the Sanskrit teaching staff, the qualification was BA+Shastri+Prabhakar for
teaching Prajana and Visharad and for still higher course of Shastri, MA
Sanskrit+Shastri+Acharya were needed.

6. It has been pleaded that the Institution at Patiala had been
originally affiliated to Punjab University, Chandigarh but w.e.f.
13.06.1969, it was affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala. The
University's letter to the institute clearly showed that it was treated as
a college and came within the purview of the University. It was again the
University that laid down qualification, pay scale and qualification of the
teaching staff for the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala. The Senate of the
University had made the recommendation with reference to qualifications and
pay scales on 25.12.1970 and the State of Punjab itself approved the
Mahavidyalaya as a college on 22.6.1972.

7. The stand-off between the teaching staff and the State really started
only when the State of Punjab tried to bring the institute to the level of
school when aforesaid Acharya Lekh Ram filed a civil suit stating that he
was a teacher in a college cadre and could not be transferred to school.
The suit had been decreed by the Special Judge, Patiala and the order of
transfer to a school was declared as illegal. The case was contested by the
State upto this Court and at all levels, the trial Court decree was
affirmed. The special leave petitions preferred against High Court decision
were dismissed at the admission stage. The plaintiff in that suit had also
applied for release of arrears on the basis that he was entitled to scales
of Lecturer in a college and the DPI (Colleges) had also released the
arrears on 25.09.1989.

8. The appellants’ further case is that the institutes were always
treated as college. Considering the pleadings and contentions of the
parties and observing that the State itself has not made any serious
dispute in this regard, the learned Single Judge directed that the
Institute of Oriental Languages shall be treated as equivalent to college
and it has come under the control of the Director of Public Instructions
(Colleges). It is affiliated to the Punjabi University at Patiala. If it
is recognized as college, there is no scope for the Director of Public
Instructions (Schools) to have any authority to make transfers from the
school cadre to this institute.

9. With regard to parity of scales, learned Single Judge, while
disposing of the writ petitions, held that
“All those persons, who have been brought from school cadre and repatriated
or liable to repatriation shall have no claim to parity in scales. On the
other hand, the persons, who have been appointed at the institutes
themselves directly and who possess qualifications as lecturers as
prescribed by the University or who have been brought from college cadre
from any other college shall alone be entitled to the scales of pay
equivalent to that of Lecturers. The scales shall be worked out from the
date of their engagement at the institutes and the amounts shall be
calculated and be paid to them within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of the order. If amongst the teachers in the institutes, there are
teachers who are brought from the school cadre but who have qualified to be
Lecturers in a college, with qualification so acquired, the scales could be
considered for revision and for retention in the institute itself and
placed in the college cadre. Their scales will be revised only from the day
when orders are passed for the retention in the institutes and when a
decision is taken to treat them as coming within the college cadre. This
exercise shall be completed by the Director of Public Instructions Colleges
and the appropriate sanctions shall be issued by the Government for
appropriate revision of their scales commensurate with their qualifications
and the status as persons belonging to the college cadre, within 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

10. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-
writ petitioners of the three of the aforesaid writ petitions preferred
Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of High Court, which
proceeded on the following two issues:
“i) Whether these school cadre teachers have a right to be retained in two
institutes or they can be transferred to school cadre?
ii) Whether the appellants admittedly belong to school cadre are entitled
to the pay scales of Lecturers of the colleges on the principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’ on the ground that they have been teaching in the
colleges?”

11. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the appellants
were working in the Institute at Nabha claimed parity of salary with
teachers working in Colleges and they would make pointed reference to the
fact that through instructions dated 04.03.1975, Secretary to Government,
Punjab Education Department to the Director of Public Instructions; Punjab
had sanctioned the en-cadrement of the posts of Pradhanacharya and Acharya
of Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Nabha in the college cadre in the pay scale of `
Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-600 respectively. The State of Punjab in its counter
contended that the appellants had never been appointed from the college
cadre but they belonged to the school cadre. The appellants, however,
disputed this position by making reference to the letter of Assistant
Secretary, Education Department to the Deputy Director, College, Education
stating that the appellants were working in the college wing of the
Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya ever since it was upgraded as college in the year
1972.

12. Be that as it may, after having heard learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of
the learned Single Judge holding that:
“…merely because the appellants were made to teach in a college, would not
mean that they are to be equated with the college lecturers and the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would apply. These appellants were
appointed in a school cadre as per the qualifications which are prescribed
for school teachers. The contention of the respondents that the essential
qualification of passing NET Exam is not possessed by the appellants, could
not be disputed by the appellants. That apart merely because the appellants
have higher qualification would not mean that they automatically become
entitled to the pay scales of higher post than the post to which they are
appointed.
Thus, merely because the institute where the appellants are teaching is
affiliated with the University land thus gets the status of a college would
not mean that the appellants shall also be
entitled to the pay scales of lecturers. Further, the contention of the
appellants that they fulfill all the qualifications laid down for
appointment to the post of Lecturers is not correct. Even otherwise, that
cannot be a ground for extending the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’,
as the appellants were appointed in school cadre on the basis of the
qualifications meant for school cadres and the procedure for appointment of
school cadres is totally different from the lecturers. For all other
reasons mentioned above we uphold the judgment of the learned Single
Judge.”

13. With regard to the issue whether these school cadre teachers have
right to be retained, the Division Bench held that when it is found that
the appellants are school cadre teachers, they would have not any right to
remain in two institutes which have now conferred the status of colleges.
They can, therefore, always be transferred to school cadres.

14. Hence, the present appeals by special leave by the aggrieved
teachers.

15. We have heard Mr. A Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, Ms. Monika Arora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
in one set of appeals and Mr. Suresh Ajay Gupta and Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi,
learned counsel appearing for the State and respondents respectively. We
have also perused the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The
admitted facts are that the appellant No.1 Gurdas Singh possessed requisite
qualifications i.e. Shastri, Acharya and M.A. (Sanskrit) and was
transferred from NJSA College, Kapurthala on 18th August, 1989. He has
been serving in the respondent Institute for the last 26 years. Similarly,
appellant No.2 Sitar Mohammad possesses qualification of M.A., Punjabi,
Gyani (Hons in Punjabi). He was transferred from Government Middle School,
9 Kala Patiala to the respondent Institute in August, 1979. He worked for
about 27 years 5 months and retired in December, 2007. Similarly, Subhash
Chander, appellant having requisite qualifications of Prabhakar Shastri,
M.A. (Sanskrit), was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School,
Patiala in 1990 and have been working there for the last 25 years. It is
also not in dispute that the appellants have been teaching to the students
in the college.

16. From perusal of the letter issued by the Punjab University,
Chandigarh dated 27.6.1965 addressed to the Principal of all the
Institutions affiliated with the University inviting attention to the
office circular dated 27.11.1963, it is clear that the decision was taken
at the meeting of the syndicate held on 19.10.1963 laying down the minimum
qualifications for both the teaching staffs of the affiliated Institutions.
It was further decided by the University that those teachers who are
confirmed hands and over 40 years of age will be approved on the basis of
their long teaching experience etc. even if they do not exactly fulfill the
qualification.

17. As noticed above, the appellants have been working for the last 25
years in the respondent Institutions and teaching the students of the
college. The reason given by the High Court is that for the purpose of
claiming pay-scale at par with the college teachers, the minimum
requirement is that one has to clear the State Level Eligibility Test. In
our view, that condition will not apply so far the appellants are concerned
as because on the date when they were appointed and transferred to the
college there was no requirement for having the qualification of State
Level Eligibility Test. The qualification of the candidate is considered
at the time of appointment and not after rendering 25 years of service in
the college.

18. The submission of the State counsel is that the appellant is only
Acharya and, therefore, he can only get the benefit of merger. We are
unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel. Further, the
High Court is not correct in holding that merely because the appellants
have higher qualifications would not mean that they automatically become
entitled to the pay-scale of higher post than the post to which they were
appointed. The ratio decided in the case of State of Haryana vs. Kamal
Shahrawat will not apply in the facts of the present case for the simple
reason that the appellants have been serving in the college as a lecturer
for the last 25 years.

19. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we are of the
view that in the special facts and circumstances of the present case, the
appellants are entitled to get the pay-scale at par with
the teachers of the respondent college inasmuch as they have been
discharging the same duties and also possessing the required qualification.
However, this order will not create a precedent.

20. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

……………………J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)

……………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi
September 01, 2015

Back to Judgments