Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.W.P No. 4946 of 1989, 2. C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990, 3. C.W.P No. 8765 of 1991, 4. C.W.P No. 5470 of 1991, 5. C.W.P No. 5023 of 1992, 6. C.W.P No. 9431 of 1992, 7. C.W.P No. 13763 of 1992, 8. C.W.P No. 3365 of 1999, C.W.P No. 4946 of 1989

Attorney(S)

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Smarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
None for the petitioners.
Mr. Smarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.S Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Smarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manjit Singh Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
None for respondent No. 4.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
None for respondent No. 3.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
None for respondent No. 4.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
None for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Ms. Kavita Arora, Addl. A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 5.
None for respondent No. 6.
Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No. 7.

Judges

K. Kannan, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (K. KANNAN J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns multiple writ petitions filed by teachers of two Sanskrit institutes — the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Patiala and the Sanskrit Institute at Nabha — which were directed to be clubbed for disposal. Broadly the petitions fall into two categories: (1) public-interest style petitions by affected teachers seeking to prevent the institutes being downgraded to the level of schools and to have them run with teachers of college cadre, and (2) claims by teachers contending that they are entitled to pay scales commensurate with college Lecturers/Professors because the courses and teacher qualifications were governed by Punjabi University, Patiala.

A key antecedent is a civil suit by Acharya Lekh Ram (challenging a transfer from the Mahavidyalaya to a school), in which the trial court decreed that the institute was equivalent to a college and that he was entitled to Lecturer pay; that decree was affirmed up to the Supreme Court. Over two decades many interim orders were passed in these and related matters: stays against transfers from school cadre into the institutes, stays permitting transfers to/from colleges, orders cancelling and reinstating earlier transfers, and administrative changes by the State creating an Institute of Oriental Languages under the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges).

Specific writ petitions and procedural events are described in the opinion (interim orders, counter-affidavits, cancellations, execution proceedings and claims of ignorance of interim orders by State functionaries). The matters span multiple C.W.P. numbers including (inter alia) 8417/1990, 8765/1991, 5470/1991, 5023/1992, 3365/1999, 4946/1989, 9431/1991 and 13763/1992, each raising related but varying prayers concerning status of the institutes, transfers and pay parity.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Institute of Oriental Languages (including the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Patiala and the institute at Nabha) is to be treated as equivalent to a college and thereby not to be downgraded to a school.
Whether teachers working in these institutes are entitled to pay scales equivalent to college Lecturers (parity of pay), based on affiliation to Punjabi University and the qualifications prescribed by the University.
Whether teachers belonging to the school cadre can be transferred to these institutes and, if so, whether they acquire any automatic claim to college pay scales by virtue of qualifications subsequently obtained.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' (Teachers') Arguments

The institutes have historically and effectively functioned as colleges: they offered post-matriculation courses (Shastri, Visharad, Prajana, Gyani, Vidwan, etc.), were affiliated to an examining University, and the University prescribed teacher qualifications and pay scales.
The civil decree in Acharya Lekh Ram's suit (where transfer to a school was held illegal and Lecturer pay was awarded) supports the claim that the institutes are equivalent to colleges and that similarly situated teachers should obtain parity without having to litigate repeatedly.
Affiliation and the University's prescriptions (including equivalence of certain degrees) demonstrate that some qualifications (e.g., Visharad, Shastri, Acharya) ought to be treated as equivalent to graduate/post-graduate degrees for purposes of appointment and pay.
Where the State attempted administrative or budgetary changes (e.g., directing budgetary control through Directorate of Schools), petitioners contended such moves amounted to attempts to downgrade or alter the established status of the institutes.

State / Respondents' Arguments

The State acknowledged administrative control of the Institute of Oriental Languages under the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges) but contended that many staff working in the institutes were from the school cadre and had not been appointed to college posts.
The State argued that mere affiliation to a University or the examining body's role does not automatically elevate staff status to college cadre; appointment history and the cadre from which teachers were appointed matter.
The State pointed to administrative bifurcations and budgetary arrangements (DPI Colleges vs DPI Schools) to explain the complex position of staff and appointing authorities.
In some filings the State sought clarification enabling repatriation of teachers who had been brought from school cadre so that permanent transfers from college cadre could be effected.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat (1999) 8 SCC 44	There is no law to support the proposition that a school teacher, merely by obtaining lecturer educational qualification, is entitled to lecturer pay if not appointed to a lecturer post.	The Court relied on this authority to emphasise that qualification alone does not automatically convert a school teacher's pay to lecturer scale where appointment to lecturer post has not occurred.
State of Haryana v. Ram Chander (1997) (5) SCC 253	Discusses parity of pay (equal pay for equal work), exceptions where differential treatment may be justified (e.g., different qualifications, different experience, or when expert bodies like Pay Commissions address anomalies).	The Court used this decision to explain when parity should be accorded and when deviations are permissible (seniority, different qualifications, or technical determination by expert bodies).
Satbir Singh v. The State of Haryana 2002 (2) SCC 354	Principle that a legal ratio, once finally pronounced, should be applied by authorities to similar cases without forcing each similarly situated person to seek court intervention.	The Court relied on this principle to hold that the rule established in the Lekh Ram case should apply to similarly situated persons without compelling each to litigate afresh; subject to limitations noted in later authority.
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram (2009) 3 SCC 661	This later decision did not approve the portion of Satbir Singh dealing with treating work-charged service for ACP reckoning; it therefore limits that aspect of Satbir Singh.	The Court noted that Satbir Singh was not approved on that point by Jagjiwan Ram, and therefore qualified the extent to which Satbir Singh's reasoning could be invoked.
State of Punjab v. Acharya Lekh Ram (reported in the opinion variously as 1990 (1) RSJ 267 and 1990 1 SCT 267)	The civil decree that transfer of a college-appointed teacher to a school was illegal and that the plaintiff should be paid Lecturer scales.	The Court treated this decree as a decisive precedent for those who were directly appointed to the institute or brought from college cadre: such persons cannot be transferred to schools and are entitled to lecturer pay; the Lekh Ram principle applies to similarly situated persons.
Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya v. Panjab University, Chandigarh AIR 1975 SC 2478	After university takeover, persons appointed as Acharyas were entitled to Lecturer scales even if they did not possess MA degrees; certain traditional qualifications were treated as equivalent for pay entitlement.	The Court invoked this authority to support the view that persons possessing University-prescribed qualifications (e.g., Acharya, Shastri, Visharad equivalents) can be treated as fulfilling postgraduate equivalence for pay and appointment purposes in appropriate cases.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by examining the historical background, administrative arrangements and documentary record, and applied the relevant precedents described above. Key elements of the analysis were:

The institutions at Patiala and Nabha have historically offered courses beyond matriculation (Shastri, Visharad, Prajana, Gyani, Vidwan, etc.), were affiliated to a University (initially Panjab University, later Punjabi University, Patiala) and the University had prescribed teacher qualifications and pay scales.
Even though some members of staff were originally from school cadre, the administrative control and University affiliation (and University's recommendations on pay/qualifications) supported treating the Institute of Oriental Languages as equivalent to a college. The State itself admitted the institute was brought under the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges).
The Court noted the long litigation history and a number of inconsistent interim orders which created anomalous situations: orders staying transfers from school cadre to the institutes, orders cancelling transfers, and the State's occasional statements of ignorance of interim orders. The Court treated these procedural anomalies as background facts but resolved the substantive legal position based on affiliation, qualifications and precedent.
Applying the ratio in the Acharya Lekh Ram case and principles of equal pay for equal work (as discussed in State of Haryana v. Ram Chander), the Court drew distinctions among classes of teachers:
- Persons directly appointed to the institutes, or those brought from college cadre, or persons who possessed qualifications prescribed by the University (equivalent to post-graduate requirements), are entitled to pay scales equivalent to college Lecturers and cannot be transferred out to schools.
- Persons brought from school cadre remain, as a general rule, in the school cadre and do not acquire automatic entitlement to Lecturer scales merely by virtue of being brought to the institutes; such teachers are liable to be repatriated to schools.
- Exceptionally, if a teacher from school cadre acquires the requisite lecturer qualifications and the competent authority decides to retain and place that person in college cadre, reclassification and pay revision may be made — but the pay revision will be effective only from the date when such a decision to retain and treat them as college cadre is taken.
The Court relied on the principle that final judicial pronouncements (e.g., Lekh Ram) should be applied to similarly situated persons (Satbir Singh principle), subject to limitations noted in later authorities; hence, persons who meet the same factual and legal circumstances as Lekh Ram are entitled to the benefit without separate litigation.
On procedural reliefs and administrative directions the Court reviewed the record and concluded that where transfers from school cadre had occurred in violation of the position that these institutes are equivalent to college, repatriation is appropriate. The Court singled out the 7th respondent in one petition (Mahesh Kumar) and directed his transfer back and adjustment in an existing school vacancy.
Practical implementation mechanics: the Court ordered calculation and payment of scales for entitled teachers from the date of their engagement and set an eight-week timeline for payment or appropriate governmental sanction for revision where applicable.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF.

(Core holdings and immediate implications, stated exactly as derived from the opinion)

The Institute of Oriental Languages (incorporating the Mahavidyalayas at Patiala and Nabha) shall be treated as equivalent to a college. It is under the control of the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) and is affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala.
Persons who were directly appointed to these institutes, or who were brought from college cadre, or who possess the qualifications prescribed by the University (equivalent to postgraduate degrees necessary for Lecturer posts) are entitled to pay scales equivalent to Lecturers in colleges. Their scales shall be worked out from the date of their engagement at the institutes and the amounts shall be paid within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.
Teachers who were brought from the school cadre shall not, by that fact alone, be entitled to parity in scales; they are liable to be repatriated and adjusted against vacancies in schools. This includes the 7th respondent in C.W.P. No. 3365 of 1999, who is directed to be transferred back and adjusted in any existing school vacancy.
If a teacher originally from the school cadre obtains qualifications necessary for Lecturer posts and the authorities decide to retain and place that teacher within the college cadre, then pay revision and placement in college cadre may be granted — but such revision will be effective only from the date when the decision to retain/place is made. The Director Public Instructions (Colleges) and the Government are directed to complete this fitness/revision exercise and sanction necessary pay revisions within eight weeks from receipt of the order.
All writ petitions before the Court are disposed of in accordance with the above directions.

The opinion does not assert that it establishes any new general legal precedent beyond applying and distinguishing existing authorities; its directions are primarily corrective and declaratory as to the status of the institutes and the entitlement of specified classes of teachers, and it sets timelines for administrative implementation.

Show full summary ...

Dev Raj Kashyap And Others Petitioners v. The State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To Government, Punjab, Department Of Education, Chandigarh And Others S

K. KANNAN J.

1. All the above writ petitions have been directed to be clubbed together for disposal. They are at instance of teachers at two of the ‘Sanskrit institutes’ at Patiala and Nabha. The cases could be brought under two heads broadly: one, 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; two, claims at the instance of the teachers, who would contend 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.

2. 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 sought for a restraint 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 of the teachers working in these two institutes would claim as applicable to them also.

3. The disputes have been pending for fairly well over two decades and in such a long span of time, various interim orders have been passed. There have been orders of stay granted against transfers of teachers from school cadre to these institutes and at the same time permitting transfers to be made to or from colleges. The Government itself has upgraded these institutes and brought it under a single umbrella of Institute of Oriental Languages under the control of the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges). The Government has filed an affidavit in one of the cases seeking for vacation of stay against transfers to enable the State to repatriate teachers brought from school cadre to the respective schools so that process of transfers from colleges could be undertaken on a permanent basis.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sh. Manjit Singh Khaira would take me through history to stress upon importance of these institutes in this region. 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, Patiala was established. The Punjabi University at Patiala laid down the qualification of teaching staff of the affiliated institution for 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.

4. The institution at Patiala had been originally affiliated to Panjab 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

5. 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 Sh. 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 dated 17.06.1983 was declared as illegal. The case was contested by the State upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at all levels, the trial Court decree was affirmed. The High Court judgment under the title State of Punjab v. Lekh Ram was reported in 1990 (1) RSJ 267. 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

6. The petitioners would rely on other factors as well to say that the institute was always treated as a college. The University calendar prescribed that for appearing in Shastri Part-I examination, the candidate should have passed Visharad or MA Sanskrit that showed that Visharad was equivalent to MA Sanskrit and Shastri was being treated as superior to MA, Sanskrit. Any college teacher or University teacher working elsewhere could not have also taught at the Mahavidyalaya because the medium of instruction for Shastri and Visharad was only Sanskrit. The circle became complete when the Government of Punjab took note of the two leading institutes at Patiala and Nabha to be merged on 04.03.1975 and brought under a newly established Institute of Oriental Languages. Since the prayers in all the writ petitions are not the same and there are variations, it would be necessary to set out the cases in brief in each writ petition within two broad categories that we have outlined above.

C.W.P Nos. 8417 of 1990, 8765 of 1991, 5470 of 1991, 5023 of 1992 & 3365 of 1999

7. All these case were at the instance of teachers seeking for retention of the institutes as college and not to downgrade them as schools. They were filed at various stages when there had been action by the State that caused serious apprehension that there was an attempt of the State to reduce the status of these institutes. All these cases had anchored their claims to the civil court decree that stood affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court filed at the instance of Sh. Lekh Ram. In C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990, the case had been filed at the instance of certain teachers in the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala at a time when one Sneh Lata, Senior Mistress at the Government High School was sought to be transferred to the Mahavidyalaya. She was herself made as a party-respondent along with State of Punjab through Secretary, Education and the Director Public Instructions (Colleges). The prayer in the writ petition was to direct the respondents not to change in any manner the status of the institute of Oriental and Modern Indian Languages at Patiala, being an immediate response to the attempt of the respondents to transfer the 3 respondent-Sneh Lata from school. When the writ petition was admitted on 08.01.1991, the Division Bench of this Court not merely stayed transfer but also held that there should be no inter se transfers of teachers of institutes with the school teachers. However, the Bench observed that it would be open to the State to make an inter-se transfer of the teachers of institute with teachers of the college cadre. The State had filed a written statement contending that the petitioner had needless apprehensions and there was no attempt to downgrade the institute as a school. The State would contend that Education Department had three Directorates namely DPI (Colleges), DPI (Schools) and DPI (Primary) but they were later bifurcated in the year 1976. At that time, the budgetary control for the institute at Nabha and Patiala came under the control of the DPI (Colleges), Punjab and the heads of institutions were declared the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. However, the staff working in these institutes were from the school cadres and remained as such till the filing of the petition. The Appointing Authority of the teaching staff still remained under DPI (Schools). The contention, therefore, was that though there was no attempt to downgrade the status of the institutes, except that the teaching staff were from the school cadre but the administrative control came under the DPI (Colleges). The State declined to admit the plea that the teachers could be treated as at par with college lecturers by the only fact that the administrative control came under the DPI (Colleges).

8. In C.W.P No. 8765 of 1991, 15 teachers had joined, of whom Acharya Lekh Ram Dixit was also one, to file the case containing a similar prayer contained in the earlier petition and also to restrain the State from closing down these institutes and directing them not to change the well qualified teaching staff of the institutes by transfers. The Division Bench that admitted the case directed that the same interim order passed in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990 would be retained.

9. C.W.P No. 5470 of 1991 had been filed at the instance of the Punjab Teachers Union through its Secretary along with one Narender Kaur to quash the order passed by the District Education Officer cancelling certain orders of transfer already made to and from certain schools to the Patiala institute. Interim order of stay of transfer passed in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990 and C.W.P No. 8765 of 1991 had a strange consequence on orders of transfers effected similarly of teachers to the institute at Patiala and hence came to be cancelled. When the cancellation orders were made, the Teachers Union of the schools took up the cause as aggrieved that there could not have been any bar for transfer of a school teacher to the institute at Patiala. The order impugned was an order of cancellation of transfer effected on 28.03.1991 by the District Education Officer, all of who belonged to the school cadres. When the case was brought before a Division Bench of this Court, it again stayed the operation of the order of cancellation of transfer. By a further order on 19.07.1991, the Bench passed an interim order directing the Secretary, Education Department, Punjab to consider all the proposals for transfer of “couple cases” in terms of the policy and he should keep the policy in such a way that couples should be kept in the same place nearer to each other as far as possible. At this time, evidently the issue that had assumed importance was whether the transfer could be made to a particular place depending on where other spouse was actually working and the issue of whether the teacher from school cadre could be transferred to the Mahavidyalaya, did not obtain primacy of consideration. To this extent, there existed an anomalous situation of two directly conflicting orders, one, staying transfers to Mahavidyalaya from other schools and another staying cancellation of transfer orders made in obedience to the order passed by the High Court itself.

10. In CWP No. 5023 of 1992, the writ petition came to be instituted at the instance of petitioners, who amongst them were persons working in the Department of Sanskrit, Punjabi and Hindi respectively in the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala and petitioners No. 15 to 20 were working at Mahavidyalaya Nabha. This writ petition again contained prayer that the Government shall not in any way downgrade the status of Mahavidyalaya as school, particularly when the Government decided to shift the budget provisions under the Directorate of Schools. The petitioners had, therefore, impleaded the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Secretary, Department of Education and the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) as parties to ensure that budgetary proposals were not sought through the Director of Schools Education. This Court passed an order on 27.03.1995 staying the operation of the order of the Director, Education Department Schools calling for budgetary proposals to be brought through the Director of Schools from 1995-1996.

11. In C.W.P No. 3365 of 1999, the prayer had been for quashing of a decree obtained by one Mahesh Kumar securing a decree for transfer from the school cadre to the Mahavidyalaya when he was working in Senior Secondary School, Civil Lines, Patiala. The petitioners in the writ petition claimed that the decree had been obtained by fraud and collusion even when there was an order from this Court staying the order of transfer of another teacher and making a general order that there shall be transfers only from college cadre. The decree obtained by the 7 respondent-Mahesh Kumar was perceived as collusive in that the State had not properly apprised the High Court's order passed in Sneh Lata's case in the writ petition in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990. The decree itself had not been given effect to and there had been even a contempt action taken at the instance of 7 respondent by attachment of properties of the respondents. The Court, while ordering attachment, had observed that the Director, School Education, was himself not a party in the proceedings before the High Court in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990 and it should be left independently to the State to take appropriate action.

12. In C.W.P No. 3365 of 1999, the State had itself filed an affidavit through the Deputy Director, Colleges and Planning that in view of the fact that the stay had been granted against transfer from school cadre, the teachers of higher faculty, who belonged to college cadre were supposed to be posted to teach the students in this institution but curiously except the acting Pradhan Acharya, Government Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Nabha, all others belonged to the school cadre and their pay and seniority were also fixed by the competent authority functioning under the Controller of Director Public Instructions (Schools). The Director Colleges and Planning had pleaded that it was not possible to retain the teaching staff in the new institution and the teaching staff should be sent back to the respective institutions and that the Director Public Instructions (Schools) should be directed to adjust them accordingly.

13. Even when the Director, College Education was making a plea for repatriation of the teachers brought from the school cadre to the institute, the Secretary Education Punjab and the Director School Education and DDO filed independent written statements pleading a case of ignorance of the writ petition filed already and the interim orders of stay of transfers from the school cadre. It is rather strange that Secretary Education could join along with the Director School Education to say that he did not know about the order passed in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990 and that the decree obtained by Mahesh Kumar came to be passed in the manner that it did only because the concerned department did not know the order passed by this Court. It appears that when execution proceedings were taken for enforcement of the decree by the 7 respondent, objections had been filed by the State and a civil revision is reported to have been filed before this Court and the same is pending before this Court. No stay has been granted against the said order. Under such circumstance, the 7 respondent had been adjusted at the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala itself. This has been brought to the attention of the Court through an application in C.M No. 8588 of 1999. It can at once be noticed that this order of transfer is brazenly in violation of the order passed in C.W.P No. 8417 of 1990 and the retention of post by the 7 respondent had been fortuitous through a decree passed by a civil court which had not been apprised of the interim order passed by this Court staying any order of transfer from the school cadre to the Mahavidyalaya.

C.W.P Nos. 4946 of 1989, 9431 of 1991 and 13673 of 1991

14. The above cases constitute the other category. In C.W.P No. 4946 of 1989, the petitioners No. 1 to 6 were all working at the institute at Nabha claiming parity of salary with teachers working in colleges. The petitioners would make pointed reference to the fact that through instructions dated 4.03.1975, Secretary to Government Punjab Education Department to the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab had sanctioned the encadrement of the posts of Pradhana Acharya and Acharya of Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Nabha in the college cadre in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 and 300-600 respectively. The State has filed its counter contending that the petitioners had never been appointed from the college cadre but they belonged to the school cadre. The petitioners, however, would file a replication disputing the said fact and make reference to the letter of Assistant Secretary, Education Department to Deputy Director, College, Education stating that the petitioners were working in college wing of the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya ever since it was upgraded as college in the year 1972.

15. In C.W.P No. 9431 of 1992, the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are the teachers in the Sanskrit Department and the petitioners No. 5 to 8 of the Punjabi Department and petitioners No. 9 to 11 of the Hindi Department at the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala seeking for relief that they should be granted the pay scale of the college Lecturers pre revised scale of Rs. 700-1600 and they should be granted the scales of college lecturers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It should be noted that even in the written statement filed by the State that Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Patiala had been affiliated to the Panjab University, Chandigarh and subsequently to the Punjabi University, Patiala but would contend that mere affiliation of the examining body could not automatically raise the status of the institution and to the staff as that of college. All the petitioners teaching at the Mahavidyalaya belong to the school cadre and they had never been considered as College Lecturers. In C.W.P No. 13763 of 1992, the petitioner had been transferred from the school but would claim the scale as Lecturer on the same lines as contending in C.W.P No. 9431 of 1992.

16. By a reference to the pleadings and all the contentions taken by the parties and particularly with reference to documents, it is clear that by the admission of the State itself, the Institute of Oriental Languages in Patiala had been created as a unique and special institute taking within its fold the Mahavidyalayas at Patiala and Nabha and brought under the administrative control of the Director, Public Instruction (Colleges). It is also an admitted fact that scales of pay were recommended by the University and the institute itself is affiliated to the University. It will be an anachronism to state that the students would qualify as not coming from schools and pass as Shastries or Gyanis, which are held as degrees equivalent to Graduate and Post-Graduate levels in languages but the person that teaches such students in such institutes will be treated as persons in school cadre. Actually, when the Court was passing interim orders restraining the Government from making transfers from the school cadre, the Director of Instructions (Schools) had not taken note of the interim orders but the Directorate has gone about transferring persons from the school cadre. We have already seen the inconsistent orders that have come about during the long pendency of the proceedings when in one set of writ petitions orders of stay of transfers have been made, and in another set of writ petitions, cancellation of order of transfers itself has been stayed. The Government has also stated in one of the writ petitions, that the Court may issue appropriate clarification to enable them to repatriate all the teachers that had been brought to the institutes from school cadre so that they will be able to effect appropriate transfers from the college cadre itself.

17. We have in these cases a curious situation where in the same institute, there are persons brought from the college as well as school cadre. One thing is certain that it shall not be possible to recognize teachers brought from the school cadre to be accorded lecturer's pay scales automatically merely because some have obtained higher qualification. In State of Haryana v. Kamal Singh Saharawat(1999) 8 SCC 44 the Supreme Court specifically held that there is no law to support such a proposition that a school teacher could not be given lecturer's scale in a school, merely because he has obtained lecturer's educational qualification, if he had not been appointed to the lecturer's post.

18. In State of Haryana v. Ram Chander 1997 (5) SCC 253, the issue was whether teachers teaching in different institutes, where the courses were the same and the students were also required to appear in the same type of examinations, could be denied parity in pay scales in different educational institutes by the only fact that there did exist difference in educational qualification for appointments in different institutes. This, the Court held would surely make a vital difference to deny parity but in that case, the State Government itself had effaced different treatment, while revising the pay scales of its employees on the basis of recommendations of Pay Commission. The justification for such a law is obviously the principle of ‘equal pay, equal work’ enshrined in the Constitution. This is seen as a constitutional mandate also in some cases where persons doing the same work have secured parity in scales when they were discriminated against, by judicial interventions. An important exception that has come about is, when the Courts do not find themselves equipped with technical expertise to assess the equation of jobs and leave it to expert bodies like Pay Commission to resolve issues wherever anomalies are pointed out. There have been also occasions where the differences in qualifications are found to be justifying the breach from the rule of equal pay for equal work. The obvious other examples that could be cited for making deviation would be instances of persons doing the same work but having different years of experience and there, the seniority rule and the fitment of particular scale depending on seniority would themselves be grounds for pay differentials.

19. The petitioners have referred to a ruling of this Court in Satbir Singh v. The State of haryana 2002 (2) SCC 354 to support the contention that the ratio in a case must be applied by authorities to similar situations without driving portion to court intervention in every occasion. The judgment in Satbir Singh was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Sate Electricity Board v. Jagjiwan Ram(2009) 3 SCC 661 in so far as the law laid down in the said judgment concerned treating the work-charged service as relevant for reckoning the total number of years for grant of ACP Scales. However, other principles stated in the judgment could still be restated, for it is a well known axiom that when there is a final pronouncement of law on the subject, the said principle shall be applied in every other like instances by the State. The parties similarly situated should not be forced to come to Court to apply the very same established principle. This is in the context of the judgment in Lekh Ram's case, which had attained finality when the Court directed that the petitioner could not have been transferred to a school from the institute and that he should be paid the scales of pay as a Lecturer. The said principle shall in this case apply to such of those persons, who had been appointed directly in the institutes for managing students in the institute undergoing courses in Shastri, Vishard, Prajana in Sanskrit and Gyani, Vidwan and Budhiman in Punjabi. This will also apply to persons, who had been brought from any other college from the college cadre. In State of Punjab v. Acharya Lekh Ram 1990 1 SCT 267, Lekh Ram had been appointed as a Lecturer and approved as such. A transfer to a school was not tenable and in the same manner in this case, any of the persons, who had been appointed directly into the institute or persons brought otherwise than from school cadre shall not hereafter be transferred out to any school. It is reiterated that repatriation will apply only to persons, who had been brought from any school from a school cadre. The petitioners have relied on the judgment in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya v. Panjab University, Chandigarh AIR 1975 SC 2478 that held that after Vishvesharan institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies in Hoshiarpur were taken over by the Panjab University, the persons who had obtained degrees of Acharya appointed in the teaching department of the institutes as Pandits need not have any MA degree in order to be entitled to scales of Lecturers and after the services had been taken over by the University, they were entitled to scales of pay appertaining to Acharayas and as available to them during the relevant period. This was in the context of an admitted withdrawal of benefit by the fact and they did not hold MA degrees in Sanskrit.

20. I have assimilated this principle by recording the fact that the persons that possessed the requisite qualifications as set out by the University to be eligible to fulfill the posts as Lecturers and brought otherwise than from school cadre shall all be entitled to the scales of pay as Lecturers above provided their degrees were equivalent to the Post-Graduate degrees that what was necessary for being Lecturers. Such persons are entitled to be retained in the institutes by the parameters laid down supra.

21. In these cases, there are two classes of prayers (i) the institutes shall not be downgraded and they shall be retained as colleges. The State itself has not made any serious dispute with regard to the same and therefore, to affirm the petitioners' prayer in the writ petitions in so far as they raise such pleas, it is directed that the institute of Oriental Languages shall be treated as equivalent to college and rightly so, it has come under the control of the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges). It is affiliated to the Punjabi University at Patiala and that it is again another ground of recognizing the same as equivalent to college. The immediate fall out shall be what the scales of pay would be to these teachers in this institute and whether teachers from schools could be brought on transfers. This is again on the basis of admission of the State itself that it cannot be done. 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. Wherever, they have happened, such teachers are bound to be repatriated and adjusted against vacancies in various other schools. This shall include even the 7 respondent in CWP No. 3365 of 1999, who claims that he has secured a decree. Through this order, he is directed to be transferred back and adjusted in any existing vacancy in some other school.

22. This brings to the most crucial issue to the parity in scales sought by persons, who are working in these institutes as college teachers. As such, 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.

23. All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions.

Dev Raj Kashyap And ... v. The State Of Punjab ...