Rajinder Kumari v. State Of Punjab And Others

V. Ramaswami, C.J:— This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner higher scale of pay in accordance with the qualifications possessed by her in the light of Government instructions issued from time to time.

2. The petitioner was originally appointed a J.B.T teacher on ad hoc basis with effect from May 16, 1977. She had been working continuously in that capacity in various schools in the District of Bathinda, and ultimately on October 1, 1980, she was regularised as J.B.T teachers.

3. The Government of Punjab by circular No. 5058-FR-II-57/5600 dated July 23, 1957 (Annexure P2) ordered the revision of pay-scales of various categories of subordinate officers, including teachers in the Education Department.

4. Paragraph 3 of that circular placed the teachers in two distinct categories, namely Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ and provided for the required academic qualifications for bringing the teachers in each of such categories. In category ‘B’, the teachers were again divided into four groups of which we are concerned only with two groups, namely Group I and Group II, which are as follows:—

Group I - Matric with Basic Training (including Junior Teachers).

Group II - Junior School Teachers (including Assistant Mistresses with B.A/Inter/Matric plus J.A.V Training).

5. Various teachers who had qualified themselves as B.A or Intermediate or Matric plus J.A.V Training or equivalent examination had been claiming the benefit of this categorisation and payment of higher scales of pay on that basis. Some of them had originally their basic qualification as Matric with training, including junior teachers. On attaining the qualification as B.A/Intermediate/Matric plus J.A.V Training, they would claim to be placed under Group II in Category ‘B’ and were paid the salary payable to that group, as revised from time to time. One such case of a Matriculate Junior Basic Trained Teacher went to the Supreme Court vide Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers Union (Non-Petitioners) v. State of Punjab reported as 1988 (1) SVLR (L). 12. The main defence in that case was that merely improving or qualifying higher qualification during the course of the service would not automatically bring them in different grades commensurate with their academic qualifications unless they had the professional qualification of requisite experience in a post carried in the higher grade, and that a post in the higher grade shall also be available. Both these objections were overruled after a consideration of the history of these provisions, and ultimately the Supreme Court accepted the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to higher pay merely on their acquiring higher educational qualifications of B.A/B.T/B.A.B.Ed, etc., even though they might not have gained the professional experience of J.S.T and J.A.V Training. Interpreting the provisions of Group II in Category ‘B’ the Supreme Court also held that the words “plus J.A.V Training” qualifies only the word Matric, and does not qualify B.A Degree referred to therein. We have also, in our judgment CWP No. 249/1987 (Nasib Kaur v. State of Punjab) decided on this dated, that: the words do not qualify “Inter” also. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in CWP No. 484/1986 (Om Parkash Arya, etc. v. State of Haryana, etc.) decided on May 12, 1988, this legal position was noticed and this Court felt that on such acquisition, they were entitled to be brought under Group II in Category ‘B’ and were also to be paid higher scales of pay as admissible to the teachers in that class or category from the respective dates of their acquiring the Degree qualification or the Intermediate qualification. In the light of these provisions, there could be no doubt that the petitioners would be entitled to be paid as teachers falling under Group II in Category ‘B’ from October 1, 1980.

6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was a primary teacher appointed on ad hoc basis for the period from May 16, 1977 to October 1, 1980, when she was put on regular basis, the salary payable to ad hoc teachers shall be equivalent to those who are working on regular basis. And that was the basis on which they were originally also paid that amount for which the teachers employed on regular basis. The rule relating to acquisition of higher qualification and entitlement of higher pay and bringing the teachers into relevant groups is therefore, also applicable to those petitioners who are working on ad hoc basis continuously until they were regularised. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it is held that those employed on ad hoc basis or temporary basis or under temporary schemes are also entitled to equal pay on the principle of “equal wages for equal work”. In the earliest of the judgments reported as Dhirendra Chander v. State of U.P, (1986) 1 SCC 637 which related to casual workers employed on daily wage basis who were doing the same work as is performed by Class IV employees. The Supreme Court felt that they ought to be paid the same wages and allowances as were being paid to the regularly employed Class IV employees. This principle was followed in the other judgment reported as Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D, (1986) 1 SCC 639 which is again a case relating to casual workers employed on daily wage basis. Again this principle was followed in the decision reported as U.P Income-tax Department v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 658 : AIR 1988 SC 517. The fore-runner to this view is the one which was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported as Nachhettar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 (1) SLR 512. It was held therein that the petitioners who had been working on ad hoc basis were entitled to be paid on the same basis as the other regularly employed persons during the period they worked on ad hoc basis until they had been regularised also. This principle was applied to temporary employment under temporary schemes also in the decision reported as Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 634 : AIR 1987 SC 2049. The ratio of the judgment in all these cases, in our opinion, implies that not only they are entitled to be paid the equal wages as that paid for regular employees but they shall also have to be paid if there was any upward revision of the pay-scales for the regularly employed persons. Otherwise again we will be bringing in discrimination between ad hoc employees and regularly employed persons, which was held to be obnoxious and offending the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the foregoing circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the benefit of circular Annexure P2 shall be available to the petitioners even though they were in ad hoc employment provided the ad hoc employment was continuous and ultimately was regularised. In this case, since the ad hoc employment with effect from May 16, 1977, continued until the petitioner was appointed on regular basis, which fact has not been disputed, the petitioner is held to be entitled to be brought in Group 2, Category B, and has also to be paid higher scale applicable to that category. Since it is stated that even on the date she was appointed originally on ad hoc basis on May 16, 1977, she possessed the requisite qualification, the petitioner shall be placed in Group II, Category B, with effect from that date and paid salary on that basis as revised from time to time. In the result, the petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

8. Petition allowed.