Allowed

Arun Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2023CWP/3576/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed 103 writ petitions seeking pay scale parity and promotion avenues. Relying on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and previous precedents, the Court held that Shastis and Language Teachers redesignated as TGTs are entitled to TGT pay scales and promotion to Lecturer posts.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant TGT pay scale and promotional avenue to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) from 20.08.2022, to be completed within seven weeks.

Arun Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	CWP No.2171 of 2023
	alongwith connected matters
-------------------------------------	Decided on: 4^thSeptember, 2023 ------------------------------------------------
1.CWP No.2171 of 2023
Hem Raj	.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------------------------
2.CWP No.3483 of 2023
Savita Sharma	.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------------------------
3.CWP No.3484 of 2023
Shakuntla Devi	.....Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------	------------------------------------------------
4.CWP No.3485 of 2023
Lalit Kumar	.....Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------	------------------------------------------------
5.CWP No.3486 of 2023
Tej Singh	.....Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------- 6.CWP No.3487 of 2023	------------------------------------------------
Manjeet Paul	.....Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------------------------

¶3

¶4

7.CWP No.3488 of 2023 Kushal Dutt		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
--------------------------------------	-----------------	------------------------------
8.CWP No.3489 of 2023
Hem Lata		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
9.CWP No.3490 of 2023
Pratibha Kumari		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
10. CWP No.3491 of 2023
Anil Sharma		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 11. CWP No.3492 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Aruna Bhardwaj		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 12. CWP No.3493 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Krishan Kumar		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶5

¶6

13. CWP No.3494 of 2023
Bandna Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
14. CWP No.3495 of 2023
Munni Devi		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
--------------------------------------	-----------------	------------------------------
15. CWP No.3496 of 2023
Bandna Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
--------------------------------------	-----------------	------------------------------
16. CWP No.3497 of 2023
Vijay Kumar		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
--------------------------------------	-----------------	------------------------------
17. CWP No.3498 of 2023
Suresh Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 18. CWP No.3499 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Suresh Kumar		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 19. CWP No.3500 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Virbhader Singh		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶7

¶8

20. CWP No.3501 of 2023
Priyanka Thakur		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
21. CWP No.3502 of 2023
Amit Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
22. CWP No.3503 of 2023
Chameli Devi		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
23. CWP No.3504 of 2023
Chander Kanta	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 24. CWP No.3505 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Ajay Singh		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
25. CWP No.3506 of 2023
Kuldeep Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 26. CWP No.3507 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Kuldeep Singh	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶9

¶10

27. CWP No.3508 of 2023
Lata Devi		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 28. CWP No.3509 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Vijay Laxmi Saini		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 29. CWP No.3510 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Neeraj Kumar		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
--------------------------------------	-----------------	------------------------------
30. CWP No.3521 of 2023
Meena Kumari Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 31. CWP No.3522 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Anu Bala		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
32. CWP No.3523 of 2023
Inder Singh		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
33. CWP No.3524 of 2023
Sunita Bhargav	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶11

¶12

34. CWP No.3525 of 2023
Naresh Kumari		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
35. CWP No.3526 of 2023
Inder Singh	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
36. CWP No.3527 of 2023
Sunita Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 37. CWP No.3528 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Balbir Singh	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
38. CWP No.3529 of 2023
Shayam Lal	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 39. CWP No.3530 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Amita Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 40. CWP No.3531 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Man Singh	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶13

¶14

41. CWP No.3532 of 2023
Manisha Devi		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
42. CWP No.3533 of 2023
Attar Chand		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 43. CWP No.3534 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Asha Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
44. CWP No.3535 of 2023
Ishdeep Kaur	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 45. CWP No.3536 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Arun Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
46. CWP No.3537 of 2023
Madhu Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 47. CWP No.3538 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Hem Lata	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶15

¶16

48. CWP No.3539 of 2023
Draupti Devi		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
49. CWP No.3540 of 2023
Baldev Ram		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
50. CWP No.3541 of 2023
Banita Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
51. CWP No.3542 of 2023
Suresh Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
52. CWP No.3543 of 2023
Rajesh Kumar Choudhary	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 53. CWP No.3544 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Rajesh Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 54. CWP No.3546 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Manju Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶17

¶18

55. CWP No.3547 of 2023
Madhu Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 56. CWP No.3548 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Sudesh Bala	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
57. CWP No.3549 of 2023
Poonam Kumari		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 58. CWP No.3550 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Rakesh Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
59. CWP No.3551 of 2023
Madan Sharma		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
60. CWP No.3557 of 2023
Lata		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 61. CWP No.3558 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Sunita Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶19

¶20

62. CWP No.3559 of 2023
Deepak Sharma		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
63. CWP No.3560 of 2023
Yadvinder Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
64. CWP No.3561 of 2023
Rajinder Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
65. CWP No.3562 of 2023
Poonam Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 66. CWP No.3563 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Sushma Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 67. CWP No.3564 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Nitu Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
68. CWP No.3565 of 2023
Nisha Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶21

¶22

69. CWP No.3566 of 2023
Mohit Sharma		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
70. CWP No.3567 of 2023
Dharmender Singh	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 71. CWP No.3568 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Dila Ram	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
72. CWP No.3569 of 2023
Sunita Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
73. CWP No.3570 of 2023
Vinod Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
74. CWP No.3571 of 2023
Prem Varsha	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 75. CWP No.3572 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Minakshi Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶23

¶24

76. CWP No.3573 of 2023
Sunil Kumar		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
77. CWP No.3574 of 2023
Ajay Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 78. CWP No.3575 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Ajay Kumar	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
79. CWP No.3576 of 2023
Arun Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
80. CWP No.3577 of 2023
Parveen Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
81. CWP No.3578 of 2023
Sujata Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 82. CWP No.3579 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Manohar Lal	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶25

¶26

83. CWP No.3580 of 2023
Mamta Saini		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
84. CWP No.3581 of 2023
Anju Bala	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
85. CWP No.3582 of 2023
Amita Thakur		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
86. CWP No.3583 of 2023
Anupam	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 87. CWP No.3584 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Asha Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 88. CWP No.3585 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Himani Saini	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
89. CWP No.3586 of 2023
Anju Puri	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶27

90. CWP No.3587 of 2023	14
Sunita Kumari		.....Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
91. CWP No.3588 of 2023
Sunita Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
92. CWP No.3589 of 2023
Sheetal Sharma	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
93. CWP No.3590 of 2023
Asha Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 94. CWP No.3591 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Reeta Kumari	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 95. CWP No.3592 of 2023	-----------------	------------------------------
Mamta Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
96. CWP No.3593 of 2023
Archana Devi	Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶28

¶29

97. CWP No.3594 of 2023
Surender Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
98. CWP No.3595 of 2023
Satya Prakash Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 99. CWP No.3596 of 2023	------------------------------
Savita Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 100.CWP No.3597 of 2023	------------------------------
Hari Krishan Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 101.CWP No.3598 of 2023	------------------------------
Hardeep Kaur	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
102.CWP No.3599 of 2023
Banti Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
103.CWP No.3600 of 2023
Sandeep Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶30

¶31

104.CWP No.3601 of 2023
Vijay Chand Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
105.CWP No.3602 of 2023
Bias Dev	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
106.CWP No.3603 of 2023
Ritu Kalia	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 107.CWP No.3607 of 2023	------------------------------
Manoj Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 108.CWP No.3608 of 2023	------------------------------
Neetu Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 109.CWP No.3609 of 2023	------------------------------
Rakesh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 110.CWP No.3610 of 2023	------------------------------
Reeti Sharma Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶32

¶33

111.CWP No.3611 of 2023
Jarm Singh Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
112.CWP No.3612 of 2023
Meena Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
113.CWP No.3613 of 2023
Lata Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
114.CWP No.3614 of 2023
Rikhi Ram Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
115.CWP No.3615 of 2023
Manoj Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
116.CWP No.3616 of 2023
Ranjana Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
117.CWP No.3617 of 2023
Murari Lal Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶34

¶35

118.CWP No.3618 of 2023
Dinesh Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
119.CWP No.3619 of 2023
Dinesh Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
120.CWP No.3620 of 2023
Tara Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
121.CWP No.3621 of 2023
Rajni Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
122.CWP No.3622 of 2023
Manorma Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 123.CWP No.3623 of 2023	------------------------------
Manju Thakur Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 124.CWP No.3624 of 2023	------------------------------
Jayotisna Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶36

¶37

125.CWP No.3625 of 2023
Shalini Vaidya Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
126.CWP No.3626 of 2023
Ravinder Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 127.CWP No.3627 of 2023	------------------------------
Thakur Chand Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
128.CWP No.3628 of 2023
Neeraj Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
129.CWP No.3629 of 2023
Puran Chand Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 130.CWP No.3630 of 2023	------------------------------
Pravesh Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
131.CWP No.3631 of 2023
Lata Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶38

¶39

132.CWP No.3632 of 2023
Surinder Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
133.CWP No.3633 of 2023
Suresh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
134.CWP No.3634 of 2023
Naresh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
135.CWP No.3635 of 2023
Saroj Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
136.CWP No.3636 of 2023
Navnidhi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
137.CWP No.3637 of 2023
Rakesh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 138.CWP No.3638 of 2023	------------------------------
Gaman Bala Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶40

¶41

139.CWP No.3639 of 2023
Sunita Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
140.CWP No.3640 of 2023
Sarita Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
141.CWP No.3641 of 2023
Bala Ram	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 142.CWP No.3642 of 2023	------------------------------
Preeti Thakur Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
143.CWP No.3643 of 2023
Neelam Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 144.CWP No.3644 of 2023	------------------------------
Nirupama Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 145.CWP No.3645 of 2023	------------------------------
Poonam Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶42

¶43

146.CWP No.3646 of 2023
Subhash Chand	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------ 147.CWP No.3647 of 2023	------------------------------
Gulzari Lal Nanda	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
148.CWP No.3648 of 2023
Hem Lal Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 149.CWP No.3649 of 2023	------------------------------
Pawan Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
150.CWP No.3696 of 2023
Naresh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 151.CWP No.3697 of 2023	------------------------------
Puran Chand Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 152.CWP No.3698 of 2023	------------------------------
Saurabh Sharma Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶44

¶45

153.CWP No.3699 of 2023
Chamno Ram	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
154.CWP No.3700 of 2023
Anil Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
155.CWP No.3701 of 2023
Achla Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
156.CWP No.3702 of 2023
Kishori Lal Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
157.CWP No.3703 of 2023
Chuni Lal Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
158.CWP No.3704 of 2023
Dhameshari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 159.CWP No.3705 of 2023	------------------------------
Chandra Vati Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶46

¶47

160.CWP No.3706 of 2023 Alkeshwari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
161.CWP No.3707 of 2023
Jyoti Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 162.CWP No.3708 of 2023	------------------------------
Amanjeet Kaur Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
163.CWP No.3709 of 2023
Kamlesh Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 164.CWP No.3710 of 2023	------------------------------
Meena Kumari Soni Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
165.CWP No.3711 of 2023
Meena Kumari Saini Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
166.CWP No.3712 of 2023
Jagtamba Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶48

¶49

167.CWP No.3713 of 2023
Balam Ram Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 168.CWP No.3714 of 2023	------------------------------
Kamal Deep Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
169.CWP No.3715 of 2023
Anita Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
170.CWP No.3716 of 2023
Hem Lata Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 171.CWP No.3717 of 2023	------------------------------
Sandeep Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
172.CWP No.3718 of 2023
Dilaver Singh Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 173.CWP No.3719 of 2023	------------------------------
Arvind Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶50

¶51

174.CWP No.3720 of 2023
Rakesh Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
175.CWP No.3721 of 2023
Shakti Sharma Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
176.CWP No.3722 of 2023
Dharmender Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 177.CWP No.3723 of 2023	------------------------------
Devender Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
178.CWP No.3724 of 2023
Pushpa Rani Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 179.CWP No.3725 of 2023	------------------------------
Rajender Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
180.CWP No.3726 of 2023
Naincy Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶52

¶53

181.CWP No.3727 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------ 182.CWP No.3728 of 2023	------------------------------
Pankaj Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
183.CWP No.3729 of 2023
Reena Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
184.CWP No.3730 of 2023
Sandeep Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
185.CWP No.3731 of 2023
Manju Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
186.CWP No.3732 of 2023
Manju Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
187.CWP No.3733 of 2023
Pankaj Thakur Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶54

¶55

188.CWP No.3734 of 2023
Dinesh Kumar	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
189.CWP No.3735 of 2023
Naresh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 190.CWP No.3736 of 2023	------------------------------
Sushil Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 191.CWP No.3737 of 2023	------------------------------
Dalmia Chauhan Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 192.CWP No.3739 of 2023	------------------------------
Jasmina Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
193.CWP No.3742 of 2023
Pushap Raj Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 194.CWP No.3745 of 2023	------------------------------
Ravinder Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶56

¶57

195.CWP No.3747 of 2023
Shashi Bala Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
196.CWP No.3750 of 2023
Lekh Raj	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
197.CWP No.3752 of 2023
Roshan Lal Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
198.CWP No.3755 of 2023
Raj Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 199.CWP No.3757 of 2023	------------------------------
Natho Ram Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
200.CWP No.3759 of 2023
Kiran Bala Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 201.CWP No.3761 of 2023	------------------------------
Nagesh Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶58

¶59

202.CWP No.3763 of 2023
Shanta Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 203.CWP No.3764 of 2023	------------------------------
Om Prakash Sharma Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
204.CWP No.3765 of 2023
Inder Dev Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
205.CWP No.3767 of 2023
Sonika Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 206.CWP No.3768 of 2023	------------------------------
Kashmira Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
207.CWP No.3770 of 2023
Reena Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 208.CWP No.3771 of 2023	------------------------------
Lekh Ram Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶60

¶61

209.CWP No.3772 of 2023
Durga Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others ------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
210.CWP No.3773 of 2023
Renuka Devi	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 211.CWP No.3774 of 2023	------------------------------
Reeta Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
212.CWP No.3776 of 2023
Reena Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 213.CWP No.3778 of 2023	------------------------------
Vijay Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
214.CWP No.3779 of 2023
Usha Deepak Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
215.CWP No.3780 of 2023
Usha Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶62

¶63

216.CWP No.3781 of 2023
Veer Dutt Sharma	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
217.CWP No.3783 of 2023
Raksha Devi	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------	------------------------------
218.CWP No.3784 of 2023
Dhuma Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
219.CWP No.3785 of 2023
Suman Lata Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 220.CWP No.3786 of 2023	------------------------------
Isha Devi Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
221.CWP No.3788 of 2023
Jagdish Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 222.CWP No.3789 of 2023	------------------------------
Pawan Kumar Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶64

¶65

223.CWP No.3790 of 2023
Saroj Kumari Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
224.CWP No.3791 of 2023
Sapna Devi	.....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 225.CWP No.3792 of 2023	------------------------------
Pulkit Sharma Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
226.CWP No.3793 of 2023
Joginder Singh Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 227.CWP No.3794 of 2023	------------------------------
Reena Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others ------------------------------------------------------- 228.CWP No.4015 of 2023	.....Respondents ------------------------------
Dev Raj Singh Versus	.....Petitioner
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
229.CWP No.5530 of 2023
Hom Chand and others Versus	.....Petitioners
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶66

¶67

230. CWP No.5876 of 2023

¶68

Naresh Kumar and others .....Petitioners

¶69

Versus

¶70

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶71

Coram

¶72

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶73

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶74

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R.

¶75

Sidhu, Advocates, in all the matters.

¶76

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, in all the matters.

¶77

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶78

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶79

All these writ petitions involve common

¶80

questions of law and facts, hence, are being considered and adjudicated together. For convenience, facts and documents

¶81

from lead case, i.e. CWP No.2171 of 2023 (Hem Raj Versus State of H.P. and others), have been referred to.

¶82

2. The case:-

¶83

The petitioners were serving as Language Teachers (LT) and Shastris in the respondentEducation Department. In fact, some of the petitioners were appointed in the year 2006 as Craft & Vernacular (C&V) Teachers, whereas, the others were initially appointed as

¶84

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

¶85

¶86

Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers and in the year 2016, were promoted as C&V Teachers. The petitioners belong to two streams, i.e. Language Teacher (Hindi) and Shastri (Sanskrit). All the petitioners are B.Ed. qualified and have passed Teachers Eligibility Test.

¶87

On 20.08.2022, the respondents-State issued a notification, changing the nomenclature of B.Ed. qualified and Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) passed Shastris (Sanskrit) and Language Teachers (Hindi) as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT)-Sanskrit and TGT-Hindi, respectively. This notification as referred by the respondents in their office letter dated 25.02.2023

¶88

(Annexure P-1) reads as under:-

¶89

“Subject:Regarding nomenclature of B.Ed. qualified and TET passed Shastri and LT as TGT Sanskrit and TGT Hindi respectively in their own pay scale structure.

¶90

Sir,

¶91

Kindly refer to your office letter No.EDN-CHMEle.(E-III)B(15)08/2012-5778 dated 11.10.2022 on the subject cited above.

¶92

In this context, it is informed that as per Notification No.EDN-C-B(15)15/2011-Part-I dated 20.08.2022 the nomenclature of B.Ed. qualified and Teacher Eligibility Test passed Shastri and Language Teacher has been changed as TGT-Sanskrit and TGTHindi respectively in their own pay scale structure.

¶93

In view of above, you are hereby directed to consider Shastri TET for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) and LT TET for the post of TGT (Hindi).

¶94

Sd/Director of Elementary Education Himachal Pradesh.”

¶95

¶96

Despite the change of nomenclature of the posts

¶97

held by Shastris and Language Teachers (possessing higher qualification) as TGT (Sanskrit) and TGT (Hindi), the erstwhile Shastris and Language Teachers have been kept in their own pay structure. Aggrieved, these writ petitions have been filed primarily with the prayers that on re-designation of the posts of B.Ed. qualified and TET passed Shastris and Language Teachers as TGT (Sanskrit) and TGT (Hindi), respectively, not only the pay scale attached to the posts of TGTs is required to be given to the erstwhile Shastris and Language Teachers, but the same channel of promotions as is available to the TGTs is also required to be made available to them.

¶98

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General assisted by learned Additional Advocate General & learned Law Officer for the respondents-State.

¶99

4. Following facts are germane for deciding the issue raised in the writ petitions:-

¶100

4(i). Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) are appointed by the respondents-State in the streams of Medical, Non-Medical and Arts. TGTs are not appointed in the subjects of Sanskrit and Hindi.

¶101

¶102

4(ii). TGTs impart education to the students of 6^th to

¶103

10^th classes in the schools.

¶104

4(iii). For teaching Hindi and Sanskrit, the respondents-State appoint Language Teachers (Hindi) and Shastris (Sanskrit).

¶105

4(iv)(a). An original application, bearing O.A. No.2189 of 2003, was instituted by certain teachers, who were working as Shastris in the respondent-Education Department. They claimed that:- (a) Shastris (Oriental Teachers) be treated as equivalent to TGTs from the date of their initial appointment and (b) on that basis, they be also granted promotion as Lecturer (School Cadre) with all consequential benefits. The petitioners therein had claimed that they possessed all requisite qualifications for the post of TGTs and should be considered as TGT; That even the Education Department had supported their case for being treated equivalent to the cadre of TGT and had framed draft rules in that regard containing a proposal to treat them equivalent to TGTs. Since the rules had not been finalized, the Writ Court declined to grant relief on draft rules and dismissed the original application [CWP(T) No.9567 of 2008].

¶106

¶107

4(iv)(b). The petitioners (therein) preferred LPA No.102 of 2010 (Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another). The contention raised by them (appellants) before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that they as Shastris fulfilled all the necessary qualifications for being promoted as Lecturers and therefore, even if draft rules had not been enforced, then also the appellants should have been promoted as Lecturers. Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the appellants fulfilled the eligibility criteria as far as the educational qualifications were concerned. The Court also noticed that there were no separate rules/conditions for filling up the posts of Lecturers in the subject of Sanskrit. The stand of the State was also considered that promotion to the post of Lecturer has to be made only from amongst Trained Graduate Teachers and Shastris were not eligible for the post. The Court also noticed contents of an office letter dated 23.03.1999, whereby the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had virtually accepted the representation of the appellants that O.T. (Sanskrit) course for Shastri from a recognized University/Institution is a professional course like that of B.Ed. course and had advised to make necessary

¶108

¶109

amendments in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the Sanskrit Teacher (Shastri) incorporating the said qualification for appointing TGT (Sanskrit). The draft rules prepared on 02.02.2002 for creating posts of TGT (Sanskrit) were not given effect to. The appellants in the aforesaid case had the identical pay scale as the Trained Graduate Teachers. In that background, Hon’ble Division Bench on 13.01.2012 decided as under:-

¶110

“13. We find merit in this contention. If promotion is to be made to the post of Lecturer from the post in the lower rung then in our considered view the people who were specialists in the subject and were teaching that subject should have been given preference. A TGT teaches various subjects whereas a Shastri teaches Sanskrit alone. When promotion has to be made to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Sanskrit, we fail to understand why a fully qualified Shastri should be ignored and a TGT who may also have Post Gradation in Sanskrit be promoted. When the posts of Lecturer(Sanskrit) had to be filled in, the appellants had to be considered and their claim could not have been ignored. Any other interpretation of the rules will amount to travesty of justice where a more highly qualified person or a specialist in the field is ignored and a person who is generalist is given preference. The whole scheme of the rules framed for the post of lecturer in Higher Secondary Schools clearly indicates that the eligible person should have a Master’s degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University and the desirable qualification is one year Post Graduate diploma in teaching. The appellants have not been considered for these posts only on the ground that in the feeder category the word “shastris” does not find mention. In our considered opinion, especially keeping in view the stand of the State and the letter of the Secretary(Education) quoted hereinabove, it is apparent that the intention of the State was not to ignore the Shastris but it may have been done due to oversight.

¶111

¶112

14. Be that as it may, we are clearly of the opinion that if the interpretation given by the State is effect to, it would amount to arbitrary and invidious discrimination against the Shastris who fulfilled all the necessary conditions for being appointed as Lecturers in Higher Secondary School. They being in the same scale and performing duties akin to that of TGT but specifically in the field of Sanskrit would be more highly suitable for promotion.

¶113

15. However, as far as filling up the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress are concerned, the State would be justified in excluding the Shastris since the duties of Headmaster are also administrative in nature and the Shastris having worked in a particular subject may not have knowledge of the other subjects.

¶114

16. Keeping in view the above discussion, we partly allow the appeal and hold that the appellants should be considered for promotion to the posts of Lecturer in Higher Secondary School cadre from the dates when they fulfilled all the necessary conditions otherwise applicable for Lectures in Higher Secondary Schools and when person(s) who had been recruited after them as TGT were considered and appointed to the post of Lecturers in the subject of Sanskrit alone. However, their prayer for being appointed as Headmaster is rejected. The State is directed to consider the cases of the appellants for promotion to the post of Lecturers in Higher Secondary Schools in view of the aforesaid observations on or before 30^th June, 2012. In case the appellants are found suitable and eligible all the necessary monetary benefits shall be paid to them latest by 30^th September, 2012. It is made clear that the monetary benefits, if any, shall be calculated only w.e.f. 1^st August, 2002 i.e. one year prior to the filing of the original application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. In case the monetary benefits are not paid by the said date, the State shall also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. On account of their promotion, in case the appellants are entitled to any further consequential benefits of promotion etc. the same shall also be granted to them latest by 30^th September, 2012.”

¶115

In the above judgment, Hon’ble Division Bench

¶116

observed that a TGT teaches various subjects, whereas a

¶117

¶118

Shastri teaches Sanskrit alone. When promotion has to be made to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Sanskrit, there is no reason as to why a fully qualified Shastri should be ignored and a TGT, who may also have a PostGraduation in Sanskrit, be promoted. That when the posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit) are to be filled in, then the claim of Shastris cannot be ignored or else it would amount to travesty of justice, where a more qualified person or a specialist in the field would be ignored and a person who is a generalist will be given preference. It was further observed that the interpretation given by the State in not giving benefits to the Shastris and in not treating them equivalent to the TGTs for the purpose of promotion to the post of Lecturer would be arbitrary and amount to invidious discrimination against them, who otherwise possess all qualifications and conditions for being appointed as Lecturers in the Higher Secondary Schools and were also discharging the same duties akin to that of TGTs, but specifically in the field of Sanskrit. Accordingly, appeal was allowed. Directions were issued to the State to consider the appellants (Shastris) eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturers (School-Cadre) from the dates when they fulfilled all the necessary conditions and when TGTs recruited after

¶119

¶120

them were considered & appointed to the post of Lecturers (Sanskrit).

¶121

4(iv)(c). SLP No.1015/2014 arising out of final judgment dated 13.01.2012 in LPA No.102 of 2010 was dismissed on 10.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is not in dispute that the respondent-State has implemented the judgment passed in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra , but has restricted its applicability to the case of the petitioners therein.

¶122

4(v). CWPOA No.863 of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Sharma and Anr. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.) was instituted for claiming the relief as granted in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra. This petition was decided on 16.07.2020. The respondents were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners as per the decision in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra . The respondents passed consideration order on 09.04.2021. The original pay scale of petitioners (OT) in CWPOA No.863 of 2019 was not at par with the one enjoyed by the TGTs. Their grade pays were different. However, relief was granted to the petitioners. They were treated as TGTs and allowed promotion as such to the posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit).

¶123

¶124

It is in the aforesaid background that the claims

¶125

of present petitioners for (i) Pay scale attached to the post of TGT and (ii) Further promotion as Lecturer (School New), is to be examined.

¶126

5. Observations:-

¶127

5(i). It is well settled that fixation of pay-scales is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases, where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is same and duties are identical in every aspect. [Re: (2022) 9 SCALE 754 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seema Sharma) ].

¶128

While deciding Civil Appeal No.8329 of 2011

¶129

(Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers

¶130

Association & another) on 22.02.2023, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “i t may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar

¶131

¶132

posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a wellaccepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.”

¶133

In (2012) 12 SCC 666 (Hukam Chand Gupta

¶134

Vs. Director General Indian Council of Agricultural Research & others) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held “ merely because any two posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level have the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales on the two posts should also be the same. In our opinion, the prescription of

¶135

¶136

two different pay scales would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such action would not be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39D of the Constitution of India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay scale. Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The Tribunal or the Writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales.”

¶137

(2017) 1 SCC 148 (State of Punjab and others

¶138

Versus Jagjit Singh and others) delineated following

¶139

¶140

broad principles to be kept in view while invoking the

¶141

principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’:-

¶142

“42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them, were against the same post for which a higher pay-scale was being allowed, in other Government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:

¶143

42.1. The ‘onus of proof’, of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, SAIL case and National Aluminum Co. Ltd. case).

¶144

42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a “different department” vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case and D.S. Nakara case).

¶145

42.3. The principle of “equal pay for equal work”, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based

¶146

¶147

on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case). For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case, Mewa Ram Kanojia case, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case and S.C. Chandra case).

¶148

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” (see Randhir Singh case, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Hukum Chand Gupta case). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.

¶149

42.5. In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case and SBI case). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case).

¶150

42.6. For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case).

¶151

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-

¶152

¶153

scales. Such as – “selection grade”, in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as – merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia).

¶154

42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a- vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see Mewa Ram Kanojia case and State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy). In such a case, the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, cannot be invoked.

¶155

42.9. The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey and Hukum Chand Gupta case).

¶156

42.10. A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand).

¶157

42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable. And also when, the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see SBI case).

¶158

42.12. The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein also, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.).

¶159

¶160

42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay- scale. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn.).

¶161

42.14. For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is nonteaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T. Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur).

¶162

42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar.

¶163

42.16. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case).

¶164

42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay scales, under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations, is with different entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case and National Aluminum Co. Ltd. case).”

¶165

¶166

The respondents-State have themselves issued a notification on 20.08.2022, changing the nomenclature of such of Shastris and Language Teachers, who possess the qualifications of B.Ed. and have also passed TET. The nomenclature of the post of such of Shastris has been changed to TGT (Sanskrit) and that of Language Teachers as TGT (Hindi). Having changed the designation of the posts held by the petitioners, i.e. Shastri (Sanskrit) and Language Teacher (Hindi) to TGT (Sanskrit) & TGT (Hindi), the respondents in the given facts and circumstances of the case, could not restrict them to the post of Shastris and Language Teachers in their original pay structure. The pay scale was also required to be modified and changed accordingly.

¶167

5(ii). Ordinarily, it would not be within the domain of the Court to remark upon the question of pay scale to be given to a particular post, but the question involved in these matters is distinct with different case history of petitioners’ claim:-

¶168

5(ii)(a). The respondents have themselves changed the designation of the posts held by such of the Shastris (Sanskrit) and Language Teachers (Hindi), who satisfy the eligibility criteria as TGT (Sanskrit) and TGT (Hindi). There

¶169

¶170

is no gainsaying in mere change of designation unless and until the pay scale attached with the change of designation and further consequences also follow.

¶171

5(ii)(b). It is not in dispute that such of Shastris and

¶172

Language Teachers, who fall within the purview of notification dated 20.08.2022, discharge same duties, as discharged by the other Trained Graduate Teachers, viz. TGT (Medical), TGT (Non-Medical) and TGT (Arts). All of them teach students of classes 6^th to 10^th . The only difference is in the subjects they teach. Shastris teach Sanskrit, whereas the Language Teachers teach Hindi. TGTs (Arts) teach other subjects, i.e. Social Science, English etc. TGT (Non-Medical) & (Medical) teach Science subjects. In fact, the petitioners belong to a specialized stream. They are experts in specific subjects of Sanskrit and Hindi. There is no reason for denying them the pay-scales given to other TGTs, merely because their subjects are Sanskrit and Hindi. Similarly, there is no good reason for not considering them for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) like other TGTs, who can get promotion as Lecturers (School Cadre), more so, when the respondents-State has itself changed the nomenclature of their posts and designated them as TGT.

¶173

¶174

5(ii)(c). The reasoning given by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra, applies to the case of the petitioners as well. In the said case, the petitioners were Shastris (Sanskrit), but not being treated equivalent to Trained Graduate Teachers for the purpose of promotion. The only difference between the instant case and the case of Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case is that the petitioners in that case were getting identical pay as TGTs. Hon’ble Division Bench categorically held that a TGT teaches various subjects, whereas a Shastri teaches Sanskrit alone; When promotion is to be made to the post of Lecturer in the subject of Sanskrit, then the claim of the expert cannot be side-lined; The specialist cannot be ignored for promotion over a generalist; From the documents available on record, the Court also observed that even the intention of the State was not to ignore Shastris for promotion to the post of Lecturer; The Court held that Shastris while teaching Sanskrit, perform the same duties as are discharged by the other TGTs in other subjects.

¶175

5(ii)(d). That Shastris perform the same duties as executed by the TGTs, has been acknowledged in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s judgment, supra. In the said decision, the

¶176

¶177

writ petitioners were Shastris, but enjoyed the same scale as given to TGTs & fulfilled educational criteria to be considered as TGTs for promotion to the post of Lecturer. After dismissal of their Special Leave Petition, the respondents have implemented the decision, but with respect to the writ petitioners in that case.

¶178

While considering the cases of Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar Dogra (petitioners in CWPOA No.863 of 2019) on the analogy of Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s decision, the respondents-State noticed that pay-scale of TGT and original pay-scale of OT (Shastri) were not identical, but still treated the latter category as TGT & promoted them as Lecturer (Sanskrit).

¶179

5(iii). In the instant case, petitioners belong to two specialized streams, one pertains to Sanskrit (Shastri) and the other to Hindi (LT). Petitioners possess the same qualifications as are possessed by the TGTs of other streams. For that reason, the respondents under notification dated 20.08.2022, have re-designated such of Shastris and LTs, who possess same qualifications as possessed by the TGTs (i.e. B.Ed. + TET pass), as TGT. Once that is done, the facts of the case when considered vis-à-vis all attending parameters, mandate that the

¶180

¶181

benefits flowing from that designation, i.e. pay scale and further promotion, should be conferred upon the petitioners, who possess the qualifications and stand redesignated as TGTs.

¶182

5(iv). The respondents have filed two separate sets of reply, opposing the claim of the petitioners. Respondent No.3-the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh in its reply, has submitted that the petitioners are claiming the pay scale attached to the post of TGT and promotion to the post of PGT on the analogy of judgment passed in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case. The only stand of this respondent is that “as the promotion to the post of Lecturer (School-New) falls under the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Higher Education, the grievances of the petitioner to that extent is to be redressed by him only in the light of the judgment referred hereinabove . Hence, reply to the said claim of the petitioner is to be filed by him only.” The judgment being referred is the one rendered in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra.

¶183

When one goes to the reply filed by respondent No.2-the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, the stand taken is that “the Director of Elementary Education is cadre controlling authority in respect of TGTs. For all

¶184

¶185

streams of TGTs, a combined seniority is being prepared

¶186

and the promotions to the post of Headmasters and Lecturers are made on the basis of combined seniority of TGTs. The petitioners are C&V Teachers and do not fall in the TGT cadre . The petitioners will have to be first promoted as TGT or seniority in TGT cadre, only thereafter, they may be considered for promotion as TGT.” The fact of the matter is that petitioners are not C&V Teachers now. They stand designated as TGT.

¶187

For all practical purposes, neither the Department of Higher Education nor the Elementary Education Department have opposed the claim of the petitioners. The only defence taken by the Department of Higher Education is that:- for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre)/PGT, the feeder cadre is TGT; Petitioners first will have to be promoted as TGT and placed as such in the seniority list of TGT & thereafter they can be considered for promotion as PGT. It has also been submitted that petitioners are presently getting the pay scale of C&V category; They have been re-designated as TGT but in their own pay scale. The TGT Cadre Controlling Authority, i.e. the Department of Elementary Education has not specifically opposed the writ petition. It has simply

¶188

¶189

shrugged off its responsibility, whereas, it was this Department that had designated the petitioners as TGTs.

¶190

5(v). Once such of Shastris and Language Teachers possessing the requisite qualifications have been designated by the respondents as TGTs, they are required to be included in the seniority list of TGTs from the date of issuance of the notification, i.e. 20.08.2022. All consequences thereafter are to follow. They are also entitled for the pay scale of TGTs and further promotion to the post of Lecturers (School Cadre)/PGT.

¶191

6. The Conclusion:-

¶192

6(i). The duties performed by such of Shastris (Sanskrit) and Language Teachers (Hindi) who possess the qualification of B.Ed. and have passed TET are akin to ones discharged by TGTs (Medical, Non-Medical & Arts). This has already been held so in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra, in case of Shastris. Respondent-State has not even disputed this fact.

¶193

6(ii). After dismissal of their SLP against the judgment in Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, the respondents implemented the aforesaid decision and considered the petitioners (therein) who were Shastris, as TGTs and promoted them as such to the posts of Lecturers (School

¶194

¶195

Cadre). Following the analogy of Dr. Lekh Raj Sharma’s case, supra, similar benefits were granted to S/Sh. Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar (Shastris).

¶196

6(iii). The TGTs belonging to Medical, Non-Medical and Arts streams enjoy higher pay scale than given to the petitioners who belong to the streams of Shastris & Language Teachers and also possess qualification of B.Ed. and are TET passed. But for their subjects of Sanskrit & Hindi, petitioners have the same qualifications as are possessed by TGTs belonging to other streams/subjects and discharge similar duties.

¶197

6(iv). The respondent-State has itself vide notification dated 20.08.2022, re-designated the posts held by the petitioners/such of Shastris and Language Teachers who are B.Ed. qualified & TET passed, as Trained Graduate Teachers, but restricted them in their own pay scales. All TGTs work in same establishment.

¶198

6(v). Neither the Elementary nor the Higher Education Department has specifically contested the claim of the petitioners. Taking into consideration all relevant parameters including the well settled legal position, instant is a case that calls for interference. After being redesignated as TGTs, the petitioners, in the given facts and

¶199

¶200

circumstances, are required to be assigned the same scale and promotional avenue to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) as enjoyed by other TGTs or else it would amount to discrimination & injustice to them.

¶201

7. The Result:-

¶202

In view of the discussion in para 5 above, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and promotional avenue to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre), to the petitioners [Shastri (Sanskrit) & Language Teacher (Hindi)]-now re-designated as TGT (Sanskrit) & TGT (Hindi), respectively, in terms of notification dated 20.08.2022, as is being given to TGT (Medical), TGT (Non-Medical) and TGT (Arts). This shall be admissible to them from the date of issuance of notification dated 20.08.2022. The exercise be completed within seven weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶203

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶204

September 04, 2023 Mukesh

Arun Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Sharma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monika Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Kuldeep Bhardwaj

Sushma Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamal Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chander Kanta Vs State of Hp and Others