Page 1

‘Reportable’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6691-6692 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.17176-17177 of 2013)

Gurdas Singh and others etc.     …..Appellant(s) versus

State of Punjab and others          ..Respondent(s)

with

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6693-6694 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.8082-8083 of 2014)

   Dev Raj Kashyap and another       ….Appellant(s)

versus

State of Punjab and others               ..Respondent(s)

 JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.  

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the

Judgment  and  order  dated  26.3.2013  passed  by  the  High

1

Page 2

Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA Nos.76 and 78 of 2012,

whereby  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  dismissed  the

Letters  Patent  Appeals  preferred  by  the  appellants-teachers

upholding  the  decision  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  who

disposed of their writ petitions with certain directions.

3. The  facts  of  the  case  in  brief  are  that  various  writ

petitions  at  the  instance  of  teachers of  two of  the  Sanskrit

Institutes at Patiala and Nabha were filed, which were clubbed

and segregated by the learned Single Judge under two heads.

First, the cases in the nature of public interest that were filed

by  the  affected  teachers  themselves  that  the  Sanskrit

Mahavidyalya,  Patiala and Sanskrit  Institute at Nabha shall

not be brought down to the level of school since they conduct

courses at par with colleges beyond the level of matriculation

and that the institutes shall be run with teachers of college

cadre.  Secondly, the claims at the instance of the teachers

that they are entitled to the scales of pay commensurate with

the Lecturers and Professors of colleges since the syllabi for

2

Page 3

the courses are approved by the Punjabi University at Patiala

and the qualifications for  teachers are as prescribed by the

University.

4.  The common ground for all the teachers, who have filed

various writ petitions, is that in a suit filed by one Acharya

Lekh Ram Dixit against State of Punjab, when he was sought

to be transferred from the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Patiala to

a school,  he claimed relief  of  restraint  order on the ground

that  the institute  was equivalent to a college and any such

transfer  would  not  be  permissible.  The  Court  accepted  the

contention and decreed the suit and also held that he would

be entitled to the scale of pay of a Lecturer in colleges. This

was the central plank on which several teachers working in

these two institutes claimed the same relief.

5. The factual background of the matter, as pleaded before

the learned Single Judge, is that the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya

3

Page 4

Patiala is reported to have come into existence in the Patiala

State  for  imparting  education  in  the  classical  language  of

Sanskrit  in  the  year  1860.  Later  English  and  Mathematics

languages had been introduced in the year 1862 and in 1870,

the Maharaja of Patiala created an Education Department and

the institute  was affiliated to the Calcutta University in the

year 1874. The Viceroy of  India Lord North Brooke laid the

foundation stone of Mahindra College Patiala and Lord Rippon

inaugurated the college building in the year 1884. The courses

offered at the Mahavidyalaya were Shastri, Vishara, Prajana all

in Sanskrit and Gyani, Vidwan and Budhiman all in Punjabi.

The classes in Sanskrit and Punjabi were separated from the

college and moved to the separate institutions in the name of

Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Gurmukhi Vidyalaya, Patiala in 1912.

These two Vidyalayas were amalgamated in 1963 and a new

institution namely the Government Institute of Classical and

Modern  Indian  Language(MIL),  Patiala  was  established.  The

Punjabi  University  at  Patiala  laid  down  the  qualification  of

4

Page 5

teaching  staff  of  the  affiliated  institution  for  Oriental  Titled

(OT) and MIL examination. For the Sanskrit teaching staff, the

qualification was BA+Shastri+Prabhakar for teaching Prajana

and  Visharad  and  for  still  higher  course  of  Shastri,  MA

Sanskrit+Shastri+Acharya were needed.

6. It  has been pleaded that the Institution at Patiala had

been originally affiliated to Punjab University, Chandigarh but

w.e.f. 13.06.1969, it was affiliated to the Punjabi University,

Patiala. The University's letter to the institute clearly showed

that it was treated as a college and came within the purview of

the  University.  It  was  again  the  University  that  laid  down

qualification, pay scale and qualification of the teaching staff

for the Mahavidyalaya at Patiala. The Senate of the University

had made the recommendation with reference to qualifications

and pay scales on 25.12.1970 and the State of Punjab itself

approved the Mahavidyalaya as a college on 22.6.1972.

5

Page 6

7. The stand-off  between the teaching staff  and the State

really started only when the State of Punjab tried to bring the

institute to the level of school when aforesaid Acharya Lekh

Ram filed a civil suit stating that he was a teacher in a college

cadre and could not  be transferred to school.  The suit  had

been decreed by the Special Judge, Patiala and the order of

transfer  to  a  school  was  declared  as  illegal.  The  case  was

contested by the State upto this Court and at all levels, the

trial  Court  decree  was  affirmed.  The  special  leave  petitions

preferred against High Court decision were dismissed at the

admission stage.  The plaintiff in that suit had also applied for

release of arrears on the basis that he was entitled to scales of

Lecturer in a college and the DPI (Colleges) had also released

the arrears on 25.09.1989.

8. The appellants’  further case is that the institutes were

always  treated  as  college.  Considering  the  pleadings  and

contentions of the parties and observing that the State itself

has not made any serious dispute in this regard, the learned

6

Page 7

Single Judge directed that the Institute of Oriental Languages

shall be treated as equivalent to college and it has come under

the control of the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges).  It

is  affiliated  to  the  Punjabi  University  at  Patiala.  If  it  is

recognized  as  college,  there  is  no  scope  for  the  Director  of

Public Instructions (Schools)  to have any authority to make

transfers from the school cadre to this institute.  

9. With  regard  to  parity  of  scales,  learned  Single  Judge,

while disposing of the writ petitions, held that  

“All  those  persons,  who  have  been  brought  from school  cadre  and  repatriated  or  liable  to repatriation shall have no claim to parity in scales. On the  other  hand,  the  persons,  who have  been appointed at the institutes themselves directly and who  possess  qualifications  as  lecturers  as prescribed  by  the  University  or  who  have  been brought from college cadre from any other college shall  alone  be  entitled  to  the  scales  of  pay equivalent to that of Lecturers. The scales shall be worked out from the date of  their  engagement at the institutes and the amounts shall be calculated and be paid to them within 8 weeks from the date of  receipt  of  copy  of  the  order.  If  amongst  the teachers in the institutes,  there are teachers who are brought  from the school  cadre but  who have qualified  to  be  Lecturers  in  a  college,  with qualification  so  acquired,  the  scales  could  be considered  for  revision  and  for  retention  in  the institute itself and placed in the college cadre. Their scales will be revised only from the day when orders

7

Page 8

are passed for the retention in the institutes and when a decision is taken to treat them as coming within  the  college  cadre.  This  exercise  shall  be completed  by  the  Director  of  Public  Instructions Colleges  and  the  appropriate  sanctions  shall  be issued by the Government for appropriate revision of  their  scales  commensurate  with  their qualifications and the status as persons belonging to the college cadre, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

10. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the

appellants-writ  petitioners of  the three of  the aforesaid writ

petitions preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Division

Bench of High Court,  which proceeded on the following two

issues:

“i)  Whether these school cadre teachers have a right to be retained in two institutes or they can be transferred to school cadre? ii) Whether the appellants admittedly belong to school  cadre  are  entitled  to  the  pay  scales  of Lecturers  of  the  colleges  on  the  principle  of ‘equal  pay for  equal  work’  on the ground that they have been teaching in the colleges?”

11. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the

appellants  were  working  in  the  Institute  at  Nabha  claimed

parity  of  salary with teachers working in  Colleges and they

8

Page 9

would  make  pointed  reference  to  the  fact  that  through

instructions  dated  04.03.1975,  Secretary  to  Government,

Punjab  Education  Department  to  the  Director  of  Public

Instructions; Punjab had sanctioned the en-cadrement of the

posts  of  Pradhanacharya  and  Acharya  of  Sanskrit

Mahavidyalaya, Nabha in the college cadre in the pay scale of `

Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-600 respectively.  The State of Punjab

in its counter contended that the appellants had never been

appointed  from the  college  cadre  but  they  belonged  to  the

school cadre. The appellants, however, disputed this position

by  making  reference  to  the  letter  of  Assistant  Secretary,

Education  Department  to  the  Deputy  Director,  College,

Education  stating  that  the  appellants  were  working  in  the

college wing of the Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya ever since it was

upgraded as college in the year 1972.

9

Page 10

12. Be that  as  it  may,  after  having  heard learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court

upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that:

“…merely  because  the  appellants  were  made  to teach in a college, would not mean that they are to be  equated  with  the  college  lecturers  and  the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’  would apply. These appellants were appointed in a school cadre as  per  the  qualifications  which  are  prescribed  for school teachers. The contention of the respondents that the essential qualification of passing NET Exam is  not  possessed  by  the  appellants,  could  not  be disputed  by  the  appellants.  That  apart  merely because  the  appellants  have  higher  qualification would  not  mean  that  they  automatically  become entitled to  the pay scales  of  higher  post  than the post to which they are appointed.  Thus,  merely  because  the  institute  where  the appellants  are  teaching  is  affiliated  with  the University  land  thus  gets  the  status  of  a  college would not mean that the appellants shall also be entitled to the pay scales of lecturers. Further, the contention of the appellants that they fulfill all the qualifications laid down for appointment to the post of  Lecturers  is  not  correct.  Even  otherwise,  that cannot  be  a  ground  for  extending  the  benefit  of ‘equal pay for equal work’,  as the appellants were appointed  in  school  cadre  on  the  basis  of  the qualifications  meant  for  school  cadres  and  the procedure for appointment of school cadres is totally different  from the  lecturers.  For  all  other  reasons mentioned  above  we  uphold  the  judgment  of  the learned Single Judge.”

13. With  regard  to  the  issue  whether  these  school  cadre

teachers have right  to be retained,  the Division Bench held

10

Page 11

that  when it  is  found  that  the  appellants  are  school  cadre

teachers,  they  would  have  not  any  right  to  remain  in  two

institutes  which  have  now conferred  the  status  of  colleges.

They can, therefore, always be transferred to school cadres.

14.  Hence,  the  present  appeals  by  special  leave  by  the

aggrieved teachers.

15. We  have  heard  Mr.  A  Sharan,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing  for  the  appellants,  Ms.  Monika  Arora,  learned

counsel appearing for the appellant in one set of appeals and

Mr. Suresh Ajay Gupta and Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned

counsel appearing for the State and respondents respectively.

We have also perused the impugned judgment passed by the

High Court.  The admitted facts are that the appellant No.1

Gurdas Singh possessed requisite qualifications i.e.  Shastri,

Acharya and M.A. (Sanskrit) and was transferred from NJSA

College,  Kapurthala  on  18th August,  1989.   He  has  been

serving  in  the  respondent  Institute  for  the  last  26  years.

Similarly,  appellant  No.2  Sitar  Mohammad  possesses

11

Page 12

qualification of M.A.,  Punjabi,  Gyani (Hons in Punjabi).   He

was  transferred  from  Government  Middle  School,  9  Kala

Patiala  to  the  respondent  Institute  in  August,  1979.   He

worked for about 27 years 5 months and retired in December,

2007.  Similarly, Subhash Chander, appellant having requisite

qualifications  of  Prabhakar  Shastri,  M.A.  (Sanskrit),  was

transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Patiala

in 1990 and have been working there for the last 25 years.  It

is also not in dispute that the appellants have been teaching to

the students in the college.

16. From  perusal  of  the  letter  issued  by  the  Punjab

University,  Chandigarh  dated  27.6.1965  addressed  to  the

Principal  of  all  the Institutions affiliated with the University

inviting attention to the office circular dated 27.11.1963, it is

clear  that  the  decision  was  taken  at  the  meeting  of  the

syndicate  held  on  19.10.1963  laying  down  the  minimum

qualifications  for  both  the  teaching  staffs  of  the  affiliated

Institutions.   It  was  further  decided  by  the  University  that

12

Page 13

those teachers who are confirmed hands and over 40 years of

age  will  be  approved  on  the  basis  of  their  long  teaching

experience  etc.  even  if  they  do  not  exactly  fulfill  the

qualification.  

17. As noticed above, the appellants have been working for

the last 25 years in the respondent Institutions and teaching

the  students  of  the  college.   The reason given by  the  High

Court is that for the purpose of claiming pay-scale at par with

the college teachers, the minimum requirement is that one has

to  clear  the  State  Level  Eligibility  Test.  In  our  view,  that

condition will not apply so far the appellants are concerned as

because  on  the  date  when  they  were  appointed  and

transferred to the college there was no requirement for having

the  qualification  of  State  Level  Eligibility  Test.   The

qualification  of  the  candidate  is  considered  at  the  time  of

appointment and not after rendering 25 years of service in the

college.

13

Page 14

18. The submission of the State counsel is that the appellant

is only Acharya and, therefore, he can only get the benefit of

merger.  We are unable to accept the submission made by the

learned counsel.   Further,  the High Court  is  not  correct  in

holding  that  merely  because  the  appellants  have  higher

qualifications would not mean that they automatically become

entitled to the pay-scale of higher post than the post to which

they were appointed.  The ratio decided in the case of  State

of Haryana vs. Kamal Shahrawat will not apply in the facts

of the present case for the simple reason that the appellants

have been serving in the college as a lecturer for the last 25

years.

19. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter, we

are of the view that in the special facts and circumstances of

the  present  case,  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  get  the

pay-scale at par with the teachers of the respondent college

inasmuch as they have been discharging the same duties and

14

Page 15

also possessing the required qualification.  However, this order

will not create a precedent.

20. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to

costs.

……………………J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

……………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi September 01, 2015

15

Page 16

16