Dismissed

Vocational Teacher'S Association v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2012CWP/14516/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by an association of vocational teachers seeking the same pay scale grade as Classical and Vernacular teachers. The Court held that the State of Punjab Pay Scale of Teachers Act, 2004, and a Division Bench judgment (Beant Singh), confine pay scales to the post held rather than qualifications, rendering prior Single Bench decisions per incuriam and the claim

What did the court decide?

Claim for higher pay scales denied; CWP dismissed with no merit.

Vocational Teacher'S Association Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 14516 of 2005

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

*** * * * * CWP No. 14516 of 2005 (O&M)**

¶5

Date of decision : April 27, 2012

¶6

¶7

Vocational Teacher's Association (Pb.) Chandigarh through its President Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Naranjan Singh

¶8

............Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Punjab and others

¶11

...........Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. M.K Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶16

Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl. A.G, Punjab.

¶17

¶18

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶19

C.M No.5771 of 2012

¶20

C.M is allowed.

¶21

Replication is taken on record.

¶22

CWP No. 14516 of 2005

¶23

The petitioner is an Association of Vocational Teachers, who are having ITI diploma of two years' duration. The members of the petitioner-Association have been appointed in different schools of Punjab under different names i.e Manual Teacher Training, Sewing Teachers, Radio Mechanic Teachers, Motor Mechanic & Carpenter Teachers etc. The petitioner claims same grade as given to Classical and Vernacular (C&V) Teacher i.e Giani Prabhakar and Drawing

¶24

CWP No. 14516 of 2005

¶25

¶26

Masters in terms of policy letter dated 23.7.1957 releasing grades to Teachers as per qualifications. The petitioner relies upon judgment of this Court in replication filed such as Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab CWP No.16380 of 1989 decided on 07.05.2009; _Rupinder_ _<u>Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab'</u>_ CWP No.12094 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2011 and Hardev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another' CWP 17797 of 2011 decided on 21.09.2011 to contend that the similarly situated Teachers have been granted benefit of the higher pay scale.

¶27

As a matter of fact, the State has enacted “The Punjab Pay Scale of Teachers Act, 2004”. The pay was linked with the post in terms of Section 3 of the said Act w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The legality of the aforesaid Act was challenged before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2011 LIC 869 Beant Singh Vs State of Punjab has upheld the said statute. It was held that:

¶28

“A bare perusal of the aforesaid recitals and long title of the Act would show that the legislature has made an endeavour to delink the pay scale from the higher qualification but have confined the pay scale to the post held by a Teacher/Master/Mistress etc. By way of illustration if a JBT Teacher holds the degree of B.Ed., which is higher qualification for Master then such a JBT Teacher would continue to work with the pay scale admissible to that post. He would not get any extra increment for higher qualification or get the pay scale of Master on account of qualification which answers the higher post of Master. The Act has rendered ineffective the policy instructions dated 23.7.1957 and 19.2.1979, which in fact, were the basis of various judgments including State of Punjab vs. Kirpal Singh Bhatia, (1975) 4 SCC 740. Therefore, the Act cannot be regarded as mere declaration by the legislature directly overruling,

¶29

CWP No. 14516 of 2005

¶30

¶31

revising or overriding a judicial decision. The Act enacted by the State legislature is concededly within its competence. There is not even any challenge to the competence of legislature to frame such a law. It does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness or discrimination. On the contrary it seeks to bring parity in the pay scale of all the incumbents holding same post without granting any higher pay for higher qualification then the necessary ones.”

¶32

The similar issue of some of the Teachers claiming higher pay scales came up for consideration in CWP No.6830 of 2005 titled “Gurnam Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab & others” and CWP No.12467 of 1999 decided on 30.03.2012 titled “Smt. Trishna Kaundal Vs. The State of Punjab & others”, wherein the claim of the petitioners has been declined relying upon the Act and the Division Bench judgment of this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Association has vehemently argued that as per Single Bench judgments, the benefit of higher pay scale has been granted recently. Therefore, the members of the petitioner-association are also entitled to the higher pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the LPA No.270 of 2012 is pending against the judgment in Balbir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others as well.

¶34

In none of the aforesaid judgments, the provisions of the Act have been brought to the notice of the Court. It was also not brought to the notice of the court that the legality has also been upheld. Therefore, all such judgments are the judgments rendered in per incuriam . Consequently, the claim of the members of the petitioner-Association for higher pay scales is without any merit and

¶35

CWP No. 14516 of 2005

¶36

¶37

the same is declined.

¶38

The fact that the judgment in Balbir Singh's case is subject matter of appeal shows that the said judgment has not attained finality. Therefore, I do not find that such judgment renders any binding precedent. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.

¶39

April 27, 2012 ritu/vimal

¶40

( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶41

CWP No. 14516 of 2005 5

Vocational Teacher'S Association v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vocational Teacher'S Association v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Parminder Singh @ Tidda Vs State of Punjab

Sonia Vs Jitender

M/S New India City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shashi Yadav and Ors.

Baljit Singh Vs State Ofhy.

Baljit Singh Vs Stateof Hy.Etc.