State of Punjab v Jasbir Singh and ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2006-07-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. No orders as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed. No orders as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and Others

Respondents

Jasbir Singh
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sarup Singh (AAG, Punjab)
• Arun K. Sinha

Counsels for Respondents

• Ambhoj Kumar Sinha

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Punjab and Others v Jasbir Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2999 of 2006) concerns pay scales for teachers deputed to posts of lecturers. Nine teachers in the Punjab Education Department were posted on deputation and, upon transfer, designated as lecturers. They claimed the pay scales applicable to lecturers from the date of initial deputation until their absorption, arguing that service as lecturers should be treated as equivalent for pay purposes. The High Court held that the respondents, while discharging duties as lecturers, were entitled to the revised lecturer pay scale from the date of initial deputation, creating a belated arrears claim. The State appealed, contending that Government Order No. 3/8/1990 clearly states that the officers were appointed on deputation and on transfer in their own present pay scale and were not entitled to monetary benefits, seniority, or experience benefits, and that the claims were not maintainable as a continuing cause of action. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that the order dated 3 August 1990 categorically precludes monetary benefits or seniority and that the High Court’s interpretation erred. It concluded that the respondents were not entitled to the lecturer pay scale from the date of initial deputation to absorption, and allowed the appeal. The decision underscores strict adherence to government orders that fix pay on deputation in the existing scale, notwithstanding the nature of the work performed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Government Order No. 3.8.1990Government Order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated 20.07.90

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equal pay for equal work

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Appellants contend that Government Order No. 3 August 1990 unambiguously provides that employees deputed on transfer in their own pay scale shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits, seniority, deputation allowance or to any experience benefit in the post of Lecturer. Since the respondents were appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their present pay scales, they could not be entitled to the revised lecturer pay scale. The writ petitions seeking arrears from 1989 are belated and not maintainable as a continuing cause of action. The order provides a complete code on monetary benefits and must be given full effect, irrespective of lengthy service. Equal pay for equal work cannot override explicit government orders. The High Court erred in interpreting the order to grant lecturer-scale benefits retroactively.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that long service and the duties performed as lecturers entitle them to the revised pay scale for the period of deputation to absorption. They invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work and argue that their actual work and tenure as lecturers should be recognized, regardless of the stricter wording of the 3 August 1990 order. They point to the descriptive part of the order showing the respondents undertaking lecturer duties, and assert that belated writ petitions should not bar legitimate entitlement. The State’s categorical prohibition in the 3 August 1990 order cannot override the equitable principle that service as lecturers merit corresponding pay and seniority, especially where they performed the functions of the post for a considerable time.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. _v._ ## JASBIR SINGH AND ORS. ## JULY 17, 2006 ## B ## [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ _Pay scale-Revision in-Teachers appointed on transfer basis as_ C _lecturer-Claim for pay scale of lecturer-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled in terms of Government Order dated 3.8.1990 which categorically mentions that concerned officers were appointed on transfer basis in their awn present p:iy scale and they are not entitled to any monetary benefits._ Respondents were working as teachers. On the basis of Government D Order, certain officials were to be appointed on deputation and on transfer basis, in their present pay scales. Respondents were accordingly posted and on transfer they were appointed as lecturers. They filed writ petition wherein they claimed the pay scales as applicable to lecturers from the date of the initial deputation till absorption as lecturers. High Court held that the E respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers and, therefore, from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they were entitled to the revised scale of pay. Aggrieved State filed the present appeal. ## Allowing the appeal, the Court ## F HELD: I. It was categorically mentioned in the Government order dated 3.8.1990 that the concerned officers were appointed on deputation and on transfer basis, in their own present pay scale and they were not entitled to any monetary benefit, seniority etc. In view of the clear stipulations, the High Court fell into grave error in holding that the respondents were entitled to pay scale applicable to lecturers. (644-F, GI G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2999 of2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5857/1999, 3243 and 8774/2000. H 642 643 STATEOFPUNJABv. JASBIRSINGH [PASA YAT,J.] Sarup Singh. AAG, Punjab and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** Leave granted. B Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondents are entitled to pay at a scale applicable to lecturer, from the date of the initial deputation till absorption as lecturer. c Undisputed background, are essentially as follows: Respondents were working as teachers designated as masters in the Punjab Education Department. On· the basis of the Government order No. 22/ 7/90-Edu.IV-3577-78, dated 20.07.90 certain officials were appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their present pay scale against the post **D** mentioned against each. Nine persons were accordingly posted and on transfer they were appointed as lecturers. The Government order dated 3.8.1990 is of significance to which we shall advert _infra._ The respondents made a claim that they were entitled to the pay scales as lecturers since they were on deputation and the experience as lecturer should be computed in the parent department. E The High Court held that the claim of arrears of salary for the period from 1989 onwards is on account of difference in the scale of pay. The same was found to be belated and acco1 dingly the prayer was rejected. However, it was noticed that the respondents had discharged the duty in the post of lecturers and therefore, from the date of initial deputation till the actual absorption they were entitled to the revised scale of pay. F F In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order dated 3.8.1990 clearly indicated that the claim for any sort of monetary benefit or experience benefit was not available. After having accepted that the claim was belated the High Court should not have treated it to be a case of continuing cause of action. The claim was highly belated and, G therefore, no relief was available. The effect of the order dated 3 .8.1990 has been completely lost sight of by the High Court. Writ Petitions were filed in the year, 1989, the High Court as noted above, dismissed the claim for arrear of sa:aries and had directed the present appellants to grant the benefit of salary rendered from the date of initial appointment till the date of regularization. H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondents having rendered service for a long period cannot be deprived of their legitimate entitlement. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents had worked as lecturers and merely because there is some B stipulation in the order dated 3.8.1990 relating to deputation and on transfer basis that cannot override the logic of equal pay for equal work. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to explain that the true meaning of the descriptive part of the order clearly shows that the respondents C were undertaking the jobs of lecturers in the college. The relevant portion of the order dated 3.8.1990 reads as follows: D E "On the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee for appointment in the (DIET's Faculty) institutes of education and training. _The following officials are hereby appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their own present pay scale against the post mentioned against each. They will not be entitled for any other monetary benefits, seniority, deputation allowance and claim in any way the experience benefit against the post of Lecturer. These orders are issued in compliance with Govt. order No. 22/7/90-Edu.IV-357778, dated 20.07.90."_ A bare reading of the aforesaid underlined operation clearly shows that the respondents' claim was clearly unacceptable. It was categorically mentioned in the order extracted above that the concerned officers were appointed on deputation and on transfer basis in their own present pay scale F and they were not entitled to any monetary benefit, seniority etc. In view of the clear stipulations, the High Court fell into grave error in holding that the respondents were entitled to pay scale applicable to Lecturers. That being so the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition. G The appeal is alloweC:. No orders as to costs. D.G. Appeal allowed.