CWP-4831 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Davinder Paul and others The State of Punjab 2) The State of Punjab and another Jagtar Singh 3) Bimal Kumar and another The State 4) Malkiat Singh and others The State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present: 4831-2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision: Davinder Paul and others Versus The State of Punjab and others CWP The State of Punjab and another Versus Jagtar Singh and others CWP Bimal Kumar and another Versus State of Punjab and others CWP Malkiat Singh and others Versus The State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate, and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP-4831 Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP-4790 and 7408 Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the respondents (in CWP- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4831-2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.07.2026 ….Petitioners ….Respondents CWP-16765-2004 (O&M) ….Petitioners ….Respondents CWP-4790-2012 (O&M) ….Petitioners ….Respondents CWP-7408-2012 (O&M) ….Petitioners ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate, and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate, 4831-2013). Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, 4790 and 7408-2012). ate, -16765-2004). ….Respondents ….Respondents AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-4831 KULDEEP TIWARI 1. submit that since are amenable to be decided vide a common ord petitions are taken up together for disposal. However, the facts ar derived from 2. (Annexure P 1640-2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 same relief Teachers, in terms of the decisions rendered and 2774- 3. out a stand that the Punjab Government had Commission, and its recommendations were also accepted. Resultantly, in the revised pay scale, Hindi, Punjabi, Art and Craft Teachers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500 who were S 2925. Thereafter, the State Government issued order dated 17.02.1989 for revision of pay scales of the Teachers working in the Punjab Education Department, which was effective from 01.01.1986. As a result, following pay scales were notified as regards Classical and Vernacular Teachers: 4831-2013 (O&M) -2- Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners (in CWP-16765 for the respondent-State (in CWP-479; 7408-2012 & CWP **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) At the outset, learned counsel for the that since a common issue is involved in are amenable to be decided vide a common ord petitions are taken up together for disposal. However, the facts ar derived from CWP-4831-2013. The petitioners have assailed (Annexure P-17), vide which, their claim as regards grant of pay scale of 2925 w.e.f. 01.01.1986, was declined unilaterally, whereas, the same relief had already been extended to the similarly situated C&V Teachers, in terms of the decisions rendered -1986. Responding to the claim of the petitioners, the State has set out a stand that the Punjab Government had Commission, and its recommendations were also accepted. Resultantly, in the revised pay scale, Hindi, Punjabi, Art and Craft Teachers were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2640, and the Vernacular Teachers, who were Shashtris, were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.1640 Thereafter, the State Government issued order dated 17.02.1989 for revision of pay scales of the Teachers working in the Punjab Education Department, which was effective from 01.01.1986. As a result, lowing pay scales were notified as regards Classical and Vernacular Teachers:- Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab 16765-2004). 2012 & CWP-4831-2013) learned counsel for the parties conjointly a common issue is involved in all these cases, the same are amenable to be decided vide a common order. Accordingly, all these petitions are taken up together for disposal. However, the facts are being assailed the order dated 16.04.2021 17), vide which, their claim as regards grant of pay scale of declined unilaterally, whereas, the already been extended to the similarly situated C&V Teachers, in terms of the decisions rendered by this Court in CWPs-2773 Responding to the claim of the petitioners, the State has set out a stand that the Punjab Government had constituted the Third Pay Commission, and its recommendations were also accepted. Resultantly, in the revised pay scale, Hindi, Punjabi, Art and Craft Teachers were 2640, and the Vernacular Teachers, were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.1640- Thereafter, the State Government issued order dated 17.02.1989 for revision of pay scales of the Teachers working in the Punjab Education Department, which was effective from 01.01.1986. As a result, lowing pay scales were notified as regards Classical and Vernacular conjointly , the same er. Accordingly, all these being the order dated 16.04.2021 17), vide which, their claim as regards grant of pay scale of declined unilaterally, whereas, the already been extended to the similarly situated C&V 2773 Responding to the claim of the petitioners, the State has set constituted the Third Pay Commission, and its recommendations were also accepted. Resultantly, in the revised pay scale, Hindi, Punjabi, Art and Craft Teachers were 2640, and the Vernacular Teachers, - Thereafter, the State Government issued order dated 17.02.1989 for revision of pay scales of the Teachers working in the Punjab Education Department, which was effective from 01.01.1986. As a result, lowing pay scales were notified as regards Classical and Vernacular AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-4831 Sr. No.1 1. 4. Rs.1500-2640 for Art & Government reduced the same, thereby, notifying the pay scale to Rs.1410-2460 at the commencement of the initial pay scale. Further, after 08 years of service 2640, and 2925. Likewise, the Classical and Vernacular Teachers in Punjab, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit were initially placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640 after 8 years of service in the pay scale years, in the pay scale of Rs.2000 in the lower pay scale 5. and other connected counter-parts in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. In nutshell, the plea raised by the petitioners was that after acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission, the State was not empowered to tinker therewith. Eventually, the petitions were allowed, vide order dated 07.05.2009. Fetching grievance therefrom, the State preferred an intra court appeal (LPA Division Bench, vide order dated 4831-2013 (O&M) -3- Category Present Scales C&V teachers i.e. Punjab/Hindi/Urdu/ Sanskrit teachers Rs.570-1080 (with 3 advance increments to Punjab/Hind/Urdu Teachers & 5 Advance increments to Sanskrit teachers The Commission had recommended 2640 for Art & Craft Teacher, PTI, MTI Teachers, but the Government reduced the same, thereby, notifying the pay scale to 2460 at the commencement of the initial pay scale. Further, after of service, they were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500 40, and again after 08 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.1640 2925. Likewise, the Classical and Vernacular Teachers in Punjab, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit were initially placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640 after 8 years of service in the pay scale years, in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. Thus, the petitioners were placed in the lower pay scales against the recommendation of the Commission. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners filed CWP and other connected petitions, seeking parity in pay scale with their parts in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. In nutshell, the plea raised by the petitioners was that after acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission, the State was not empowered to therewith. Eventually, the petitions were allowed, vide order dated 07.05.2009. Fetching grievance therefrom, the State preferred an intra court appeal (LPA-270-2012), which was allowed by the learned Division Bench, vide order dated 14.08.2012, thereby, Present Scales Revised Scales 1080 (with 3 advance increments to Punjab/Hind/Urdu Teachers & 5 Advance increments to Sanskrit teachers 1640-2925 Sr. Scale after 8 years services 1800- 3200 Sr. Scale after 19 years service 2000- 35000. recommended the pay scale of Craft Teacher, PTI, MTI Teachers, but the Government reduced the same, thereby, notifying the pay scale to 2460 at the commencement of the initial pay scale. Further, after , they were to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1500- 08 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.1640- 2925. Likewise, the Classical and Vernacular Teachers in Punjab, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit were initially placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925, after 8 years of service in the pay scale f Rs.1800-3200 and after 18 Thus, the petitioners were placed against the recommendation of the Commission. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners filed CWP-16380 petitions, seeking parity in pay scale with their parts in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. In nutshell, the plea raised by the petitioners was that after acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission, the State was not empowered to therewith. Eventually, the petitions were allowed, vide order dated 07.05.2009. Fetching grievance therefrom, the State preferred an intra- 2012), which was allowed by the learned 4.08.2012, thereby, setting aside the 2925 Sr. Scale after 8 years - 3200 Sr. Scale after 19 years - pay scale of Craft Teacher, PTI, MTI Teachers, but the Government reduced the same, thereby, notifying the pay scale to 2460 at the commencement of the initial pay scale. Further, after - - 2925. Likewise, the Classical and Vernacular Teachers in Punjab, Hindi, 2925, 3200 and after 18 Thus, the petitioners were placed 16380 petitions, seeking parity in pay scale with their parts in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. In nutshell, the plea raised by the petitioners was that after acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission, the State was not empowered to therewith. Eventually, the petitions were allowed, vide order dated - 2012), which was allowed by the learned setting aside the AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-4831 decision (supra). However, the series of litigation did not end there, as the petitioners opted to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the verdict pronounced by the learned Division Bench, in the form of SLP(C)-422 Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015, concurred with the view taken by the learned Division Bench, and dismissed. 6. issue raised in the present set of petitions has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13.01.2015 nothing substantive survives for adjudication by this Court. Accordingly, these petitions 7. learned counsel for the parties, terms of the connected cases. 22.07.2026 Ak Sharma 4831-2013 (O&M) -4- decision (supra). However, the series of litigation did not end there, as the petitioners opted to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the verdict pronounced by the learned Division Bench, in the form of 422-2013. After consideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015, concurred with the view taken by the learned Division Bench, and dismissed. Learned counsel for the parties ed in the present set of petitions has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13.01.2015 nothing substantive survives for adjudication by this Court. Accordingly, these petitions may be disposed of, in terms t In the wake of the abovesaid common stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions are disposed of, in the decision dated 13.01.2015 (supra). A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable decision (supra). However, the series of litigation did not end there, as the petitioners opted to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the verdict pronounced by the learned Division Bench, in the form of sideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015, concurred with the view taken by the learned Division Bench, and thus, the SLP was also Learned counsel for the parties fairly submit that since the ed in the present set of petitions has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 13.01.2015 (supra), nothing substantive survives for adjudication by this Court. Accordingly, be disposed of, in terms thereof. the wake of the abovesaid common stand taken by all these writ petitions are disposed of, in decision dated 13.01.2015 (supra). A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No decision (supra). However, the series of litigation did not end there, as the petitioners opted to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the verdict pronounced by the learned Division Bench, in the form of sideration of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015, concurred with the view the SLP was also that since the ed in the present set of petitions has already been set at rest by , nothing substantive survives for adjudication by this Court. Accordingly, the wake of the abovesaid common stand taken by all these writ petitions are disposed of, in A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.23 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document