Allowed

Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2009CWP/14264/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed writ petitions challenging State Notifications revising pay scales for teachers. Relying on a prior judgment, it held that the State cannot segregate teachers into different pay scales after accepting Pay Commission recommendations. The Notifications creating distinct scales were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991 quashed; petitioners entitled to same pay scale as Hindi/Punjabi/Urdu teachers; State to pay arrears within 5 months.

Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 14264 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 9, 2009

¶3

HARBHAJAN SINGH DHINDSA & ORS.

¶4

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

¶7

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. DS Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. OP Dabla, DAG, Punjab.

¶10

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶11

This order shall dispose of four petitions viz. CWP 14264 of 1991 (Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa and others v. The State of Punjab and another), CWP 15509 of 1991 (Harnam Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another), CWP 6933 of 1992 (Sapinder Singh Sohi and others v. The State of Punjab and another), and CWP 6935 of 1992 (Gurbax Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another), as common questions of law and fact are involved.

¶12

Civil Writ Petition No. 14264 of 1991

¶13

¶14

The gist of the claim in all these petitions is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991, placed on record as Annexures P-14 and P-15, respectively, in CWP 14264 of 1991 and CWP 6933 of 1992. In the other two writ petitions viz. CWP 15509 of 1991 and CWP 6935 of 1992, challenge is to the same Notifications, however, the same have been placed on record as Annexures P-10 and P-11, respectively.

¶15

For reference to facts, record of CWP 14264 of 1991 (Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa and others v. The State of Punjab and another) is being taken up.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue has been clinched by a judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 16380 of 1989 (Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab etc.) decided on 7.5.2009, whereunder challenge was to Notification dated 17.2.1989. The said notification has been quashed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that Notification dated 3.5.1991 is in modification of the earlier Notification dated 17.2.1989. In view of the fact that Notification dated 17.2.1989 has been quashed, even Notification dated 3.5.1991 cannot be sustained in law.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on going through the judgment in Balbir Singh's case (supra), contends that indeed the matter is covered. Notification dated 17.2.1989 came to be challenged before this Court. The same, however, has been quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State concedes that Notification dated 3.5.1991

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 14264 of 1991

¶20

¶21

is an amendment to Notification dated 17.2.1989 and, therefore, following the same ratio, as laid down in Balbir Singh's case (supra), it cannot be upheld.

¶22

I have considered the issue.

¶23

The gist of the claim is that there can be no distinction in the pay scales of Classical and Vernacular Teachers, teaching Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu languages, and Art and Craft/Drawing Teachers.

¶24

Under Notification dated 17.2.1989, the Government of Punjab, Department of Education, notified the revised pay scales of teaching staff. The pay scale of Classical and Vernacular Teachers was revised from Rs.570-1080 to Rs.1640-2925. It was further required to be revised after 8 years of service to Rs.1800-3200 and after 18 years of service to Rs.2000-3500. In the case of Art and Craft Teachers, the pay scale was revised from Rs.570-1080 to Rs.1410-2460. The same was further required to be revised after 8 years of service to Rs.1500-2640 and after 18 years of service to Rs.1840-2925.

¶25

This Court, while considering the issue in Balbir Singh's case (supra), has held in the following terms:-

¶26

“To sum up the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, suffice it to say that the settled legal position that emerges is that once the State accepts the recommendations of the Pay Commission, it has no discretion to implement it differently for one set of employees than the other set of employees. Particularly it cannot apply different parameters or yardsticks to the same set of employees, who are otherwise in the same cadre/cluster that too without the issue being examined by the expert body. The Pay Commission is admittedly an expert body and its recommendations should not and cannot be

¶27

Civil Writ Petition No. 14264 of 1991

¶28

¶29

brushed aside lightly in an arbitrary manner. The plea raised by the respondent-State that they are performing different duties is of no consequence. The petitioners are not invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work rather their contention is that all along they have been treated as members of the one category of service and were placed in the same pay scale and the Third Pay Commission recommended the same pay scales for the petitioners and other categories but were sought to be segregated by the Govt. in gross contravention of the recommendations of the Pay Commission.

¶30

In view of the totality of the circumstances and the factual and legal position noticed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the impugned notification dated 17.2.1989 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed to the extent it has provided different pay scales for the petitioners, who are Art & Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers. They will be entitled to the same pay scale i.e. Rs.1640-2925 as has been granted to the Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu teachers. A copy of this order be placed on each connected file.”

¶31

The ratio of the judgment extracted above is that there cannot be different pay scales for Art and Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers and teachers teaching Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu languages, in view of the recommendations made by the Pay Commission. On this premise, Notification dated 17.2.1989 was quashed.

¶32

Notification dated 3.5.1991 has, again, created two pay scales, as had been done under Notification dated 17.2.1989. Recital under Notification dated 3.5.1991 indicates that it is in amendment to the earlier Notification dated 17.2.1989.

¶33

Civil Writ Petition No. 14264 of 1991

¶34

¶35

Following the principle laid down in Balbir Singh's case (supra), the subsequent Notification dated 3.5.1991 is also rendered illegal.

¶36

In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991 are quashed.

¶37

It is, accordingly, held that the petitioners would be entitled to the same pay scale as granted to Teachers teaching Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu languages.

¶38

The respondents are directed to pay arrears to the petitioners within a period of 5 months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶39

November 9, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA) Kang JUDGE

¶40

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶41

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa v. State of Punjab

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

Subhash Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Om Parkash Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harnam Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab