Smt. Trishna Kaundal vs The State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Petitioner claims higher pay scale in view of her qualification in terms of Punjab Government Circular dated 23.7.1957 in the present writ petition. Petitioner was initially appointed as JBT teacher w.e.f. 1.1.1975 in Public Middle School, Sariana District Hoshiarpur. The said school was taken over by Punjab Government vide letter dated 11.11.1986 from 12.1.1987. In terms of the earlier orders passed in the writ petition, petitioner has been appointed as JBT teacher under the Punjab Government w.e.f. 12.1.1987.

The petitioner asserts that she is B.A B. Ed from Panjab University and therefore, she is entitled to higher pay scale in terms of the circular mentioned above. She claims such pay scale from the date, she started working as JBT teacher in the private aided school w.e.f. 1.1.1975, or in the alternative from 12.1.1987.

I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner claiming higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1975 as the petitioner had the opportunity to claim such pay scale in earlier writ petition No. 13794 of 1993, when she claimed appointment under the Government. Public Middle School is not a party to the writ petition as well. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1975 in the writ petition filed in the year 1999, more so when she has joined Government service with effect from 12.1.1987.

In respect of the claim of higher pay scale w.e.f. 12.1.1987 it may be noticed that the Punjab Pay Scale of Teachers Act (for short the ''Act'') has been enacted whereby the pay scales were de-linked w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in terms of Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of pay and the pay is linked with the post. The Constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged in CWP No. 14634 of 2009, Beant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 LIC 869, wherein, it has been held to the following effect: - 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 and Another Vs. Kirpal Singh Bhatia and Others, . Therefore, the Act cannot be regarded as mere declaration by the legislature directly overruling, 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.

In view of the aforesaid judgment, upholding the constitution validity of the Act, the present petition is dismissed in the same terms as in Beant Singh case (supra).