SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Punjab
Vs.
Sainderjit Kaur
C.A.No.1382 of 1999
(V. N. Khare CJI. and S. B. Sinha JJ.)
18.03.2004
JUDGMENT
S. B. Sinha J.
1. These two appeals involving identical question of law and fact were taken up
for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The factual matrix is, however, being noticed from Civil Appeal No.1382 of
1999.
3. On or about 6.8.1981, the respondent was appointed as Sewing Teacher on
regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.480- 880/- by the District Education
Officer, Ferozepur. She claimed same scale of pay payable to Classical and
Vernacular Teachers. The said representation of the respondent was, however,
rejected.
4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, a writ petition was filed
by her before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by reason of the impugned
judgment was allowed relying on or on the basis of the earlier decisions of the
said court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab1 and Prabjot
Kaur vs. State of Punjab2.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that
the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment
insofar it failed to take into consideration that the Education Department of
the Government of Punjab had made rules in terms of the proviso appended to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as 'Punjab State Education
Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978, in terms whereof the Sewing
Teachers and Master(s) or Mistress(es) were placed in different categories. In
terms of the said rules, the learned counsel would urge, whereas a master or
mistress must possess a degree of a recognised university with B.Ed.; the
requisite educational qualification of a Tailoring Mistress is only matric or
middle or equivalent with three years' Teachers' Training Diploma from the
Industries Department of State or Industrial Training.
6. It was urged that the method of recruitment in the category of Master or
Mistress and Tailoring Mistress is also different. It was pointed out that on
or about 17.2.1989 the scales of pay of the teaching staff of the Education
Department had been revised; in terms whereof different scales of pay had been
granted to different categories of teachers and in that view of the matter, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other
hand, would contend that various other similarly situated teachers had been
granted scales of pay applicable to Classical and Vernacular Teachers. It was
further pointed out that the respondent is a handicapped person.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that although
the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise in passing the impugned judgment.
9. In Amarjit Kaur (supra), the writ petitioner therein had been granted a
revised scale of pay and the same was wrongly withdrawn on the ground that she
was confirmed with effect from 22.5.1974 by mistake. The High Court rejected
the said contention of the respondent but proceeded further to hold that the
Education Department had classified and recognized the Tailing Mistress and
Classical and Vernacular Teachers in the same category and, thus, when the
scale of pay of the Classical and Vernacular Teachers had been revised, there
was no reason as to why the pay scale of the Tailoring Mistress should not be
accordingly revised.
10. In Prabjot Kaur (supra), the High Court followed Amarjit Kaur (supra)
although the fact of the matter was quite different.
11. The High Court, in the above referred decisions, had no occasion to
consider the effect of the statutory rules or the notification revising scales
of pay of different categories of the teachers.
12. In a case of this nature, even the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
would not apply when it has not been established that duties and functions of
two categories of employees are at par. Furthermore, a classification based on
different educational qualifications is permissible. Yet again it may not
matter as to whether the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Amarjit Kaur (supra) and Prabjot Kaur (supra) had been appealed against or not.
[See Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy and Ors. 9].
13. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment did not address itself as regard applicability of the 1978 Rules as also the scales of pay granted to different categories of teachers by the Government of Punjab in terms of its notification dated 17.2.1989. By reason of the said notification, the Government of Punjab adopted the notification issued by the President of India in relation to the revised scales of pay to the teaching staff of the Education Department , the relevant portion whereof is to the following effect :
Sr. No.
Category
Present Scale
Revised Scale
Remarks
5.
C & V Teacher i.e. Pbi/Hindi/Urdu/ Sanskrit Teachers
570-1080 (with 3Adv. increments)
1640-2925
Fi/Urdu Trs. & 5 increments to Sanskrit Teacher Sr. Scale after 8 yrs service
2000-3500
SI Scale after 18 years service
7.
Domestic Sc. Trs. Music Trs. Tabla Players, Tailoring Mist.
480-800
1410-2640
Sr. Scale after 8 yrs service
1200-2100
1640-2925
SI Scale after 18 yrs service
14.
Work Experience Teacher, Vocation Tr. Sewing Teacher
480-880
1410-2460
Sr. scale after 8 yrs. Service
1800-2100
1640-2925
Sr. scale after 18 years Service
14. From a perusal of the said notification dated 17.2.1989, it is evident that
the Classical and Vernacular Teacher had been placed on a higher scale of pay,
namely, Rs.570-1080/-; whereas the Tailoring Mistress had been placed in the
scale of pay of Rs.480-800/-. Similar scale of pay had been granted to the
Trained Sewing Teachers. However, different scales of pay in the categories of
Tailoring Mistress and Sewing Teacher had been made in senior scale after eight
years and 18 years of service respectively.
15. The validity of Notification dated 17.2.1989 has not been questioned. In
that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained.
16. However, having regard to the fact that the respondents herein had been
granted the same scale of pay and keeping in view of the fact that she is a
handicapped teacher, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this
Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
17. In Chandra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another [ ],
this Court held:
"In any event, even assuming that there is some force in the contention of
the appellants, this Court will be justified in following Taherakhatoon v.
Salambin Mohammad3 wherein this Court declared that even if the
appellants' contention is right in law having regard to the overall
circumstances of the case, this Court would be justified in declining to grant
relief under Article 136 while declaring the law in favour of the appellants.
Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. (See Champalal
Binani v. CIT4). The High Court and consequently this Court while
exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the
Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be
lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to
extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore,
this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned
judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is
being done. (See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P)
Ltd. (2003 (4) Supreme 44). Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it
would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal
order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass
such order which will be complete justice to the parties."
18. These appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned observations; but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
11988 (4) SLR 199
21994 (3) SCT 262
3(1999) 2 SCC 635
4(1971) 3 SCC 20