IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. LPA No. State of Haryana Ramphal Singh and others 2. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Pritam Singh and others 3. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Prem Kumar Bajaj 4. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Baljeet Singh 5. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Subhash Chander and others 6. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Rajbir Singh Kuhar and others 7. LPA No. State of Haryana and Satpal Singh LPA No.2075 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Pronouncement: LPA No.2075 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus mphal Singh and others LPA No.2172 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Pritam Singh and others LPA No.2201 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Prem Kumar Bajaj No.2338 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Baljeet Singh LPA No.2895 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Subhash Chander and others LPA No.3295 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Rajbir Singh Kuhar and others LPA No.3367 of 2024 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus Satpal Singh 4 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 07th May, 2025 Date of Pronouncement: 28th May, 2025 … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondent … Appellants Versus … Respondent … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondent 2025 2025 VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment 8. LPA No.84 of 2025 State of Haryana and other Ashok Kumar and others 9. LPA No.129 of 2025 (O&M) State of Haryana and other Ashwani Sehgal 10. LPA No. State of Haryana and other Jaimal Singh and others 11. LPA No. State of Haryana and Ram Niwas 12. LPA No. State of Haryana and others Birender Singh @ Virender Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE M Present LPA No.2075 of 2024 LPA No.84 of 2025 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Ashok Kumar and others LPA No.129 of 2025 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Ashwani Sehgal LPA No.146 of 2025 (O&M) of Haryana and others Versus Jaimal Singh and others LPA No.382 of 2025 (O&M) State of Haryana and another Versus Ram Niwas LPA No.1531 of 2025 (O&M) State of Haryana and others Versus Birender Singh @ Virender Singh and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants in LPA No. 1531 of 2025. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy Haryana, for the appellants in other cases. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate, for respondent Caveator in LPA No. 1531 of 2025. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate, for the respondents (in LPAs No.2075, 2895/2024 and LPA Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate, for the res (in LPAs No. 129 and 84 of 2025). 4 - 2 - … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondent … Appellants Versus … Respondents … Appellants Versus … Respondent Reserved on : 21st May, 2025 … Appellants Versus and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants in LPA No. 1531 of 2025. Deputy Advocate General, , for the appellants in other cases. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate, for respondent no.1- LPA No. 1531 of 2025. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate, for the respondents 2024 and LPAs No.146 & 84/2025). Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate, for the respondents 84 of 2025). VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. the judgment dated 16.02.2024 passed in CWP No. 6452 of 1993 and others vs State of Haryana and others Judge allowed the bunch of writ petitions filed by the present respondents. In LPA No. 1531 of 2025 challenge i in CWP No. 19748 of 2024, which was also allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of 2. petitioners therein stated that they Course Instructors (hereinafter to be referred as ‘GFC Instructors’) in different Government Vocational Education Institutes (hereinafter to be referred as ‘VEIs’) 1983 while some have been appointed in 1986, 1988 and 1992. They all possess educational qualifications of M.A. in Sociology or Economics some of them have passed M.Phil and B.Ed. examination also. They were teaching different subjects syllabus for students of Vocational Education Institutions in the State of LPA No.2075 of 2024 Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 (in LPA No.2172 of 2024). Mr. S.S. Grewal, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA No.2338 of 2024). Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in LPA No.2201 of 2024) and for respondent No.1 (in LPA No.2172 of 2024). SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. Challenge in the present appeals by the State of Haryana the judgment dated 16.02.2024 passed in CWP No. 6452 of 1993 and others vs State of Haryana and others Judge allowed the bunch of writ petitions filed by the present respondents. In LPA No. 1531 of 2025 challenge is to the judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in CWP No. 19748 of 2024, which was also allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of Ramphal’s case (supra). Brief facts are being taken from CWP No. 6452 of 1993. The petitioners therein stated that they were working as General Foundation Course Instructors (hereinafter to be referred as ‘GFC Instructors’) in different Government Vocational Education Institutes (hereinafter to be referred as ‘VEIs’) in the State of Haryana. Some of them were appointed in 1983 while some have been appointed in 1986, 1988 and 1992. They all possess educational qualifications of M.A. in Sociology or Economics ome of them have passed M.Phil and B.Ed. examination also. They were teaching different subjects of +2 system, wh syllabus for students of Vocational Education Institutions in the State of 4 - 3 - Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. S.S. Grewal, Advocate for the respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for respondent No.1 for respondent No.1 (in LPA No.2172 of 2024). Challenge in the present appeals by the State of Haryana is to the judgment dated 16.02.2024 passed in CWP No. 6452 of 1993 Ramphal and others vs State of Haryana and others, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the bunch of writ petitions filed by the present respondents. In s to the judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in CWP No. 19748 of 2024, which was also allowed by the learned Single Brief facts are being taken from CWP No. 6452 of 1993. The were working as General Foundation Course Instructors (hereinafter to be referred as ‘GFC Instructors’) in different Government Vocational Education Institutes (hereinafter to be Some of them were appointed in 1983 while some have been appointed in 1986, 1988 and 1992. They all possess educational qualifications of M.A. in Sociology or Economics and ome of them have passed M.Phil and B.Ed. examination also. They were of +2 system, which was adopted as part of syllabus for students of Vocational Education Institutions in the State of is to Ramphal , whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the bunch of writ petitions filed by the present respondents. In s to the judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed in CWP No. 19748 of 2024, which was also allowed by the learned Single Brief facts are being taken from CWP No. 6452 of 1993. The were working as General Foundation Course Instructors (hereinafter to be referred as ‘GFC Instructors’) in different Government Vocational Education Institutes (hereinafter to be Some of them were appointed in 1983 while some have been appointed in 1986, 1988 and 1992. They all and ome of them have passed M.Phil and B.Ed. examination also. They were ich was adopted as part of syllabus for students of Vocational Education Institutions in the State of VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment Haryana. The syllabus has been approved by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the standard is of Government Vocational to 10+2 course of 3. Scheme was conducted by the Haryana and was recognized by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, as equivalent to +2 stage of patron of education for the purpose of admission to the graduation courses with effect from 1987 dated 16.01.1990, the examination of the students of 10+2 classes studying in various vocational educational institutions under the +2 Scheme of vocational education would henceforth be conducted by the Haryana S Department of Industrial Training and Vocational certificates were also be issued by the said Board. Upon closure of the Vocational Education Scheme in 2007, the existing staff of 31 vocational institutes was transferred to the Department o however, they were kept in a separate pay scale and separate cadre. Some of the vocational Education Department while few of them were retained in the Industrial Training and 4. requirement were similar to that of Lec senior secondary schools in the Education Department. syllabus being taught by the VEIs and the Lecturers (School Cadre) was LPA No.2075 of 2024 . The syllabus has been approved by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the standard is of Government Vocational Educational Institut course of the Haryana School Education Board. The annual examination of students of Scheme was conducted by the State Council for Vocational Education and was recognized by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, as equivalent to +2 stage of patron of education for the purpose of admission to the graduation courses with effect from 1987 dated 16.01.1990, the Governor of Haryana passed examination of the students of 10+2 classes studying in various vocational educational institutions under the +2 Scheme of vocational education would henceforth be conducted by the Haryana School ent of Industrial Training and Vocational certificates were also be issued by the said Board. Upon closure of the Vocational Education Scheme in 2007, the existing staff of 31 vocational institutes was transferred to the Department o however, they were kept in a separate pay scale and separate cadre. Some of the vocational educational instructors were transferred to the Technical Education Department while few of them were retained in the Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department. The petitioners preferred a writ petition claiming that their job requirement were similar to that of Lecturers (School Cadre) working in the secondary schools in the Education Department. abus being taught by the VEIs and the Lecturers (School Cadre) was 4 - 4 - . The syllabus has been approved by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the standard is of Institutions of 12th Class is equivalent the Haryana School Education Board. The annual examination of students of +2 Vocational Education State Council for Vocational Education and was recognized by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, as equivalent to +2 stage of patron of education for the purpose of admission to the graduation courses with effect from 1987-88. Vide order Governor of Haryana passed the order that the annual examination of the students of 10+2 classes studying in various vocational educational institutions under the +2 Scheme of vocational education would chool Education Board instead of ent of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana and certificates were also be issued by the said Board. Upon closure of the Vocational Education Scheme in 2007, the existing staff of 31 vocational institutes was transferred to the Department of Secondary Education; however, they were kept in a separate pay scale and separate cadre. Some of educational instructors were transferred to the Technical Education Department while few of them were retained in the Industrial Vocational Education Department. The petitioners preferred a writ petition claiming that their job urers (School Cadre) working in the secondary schools in the Education Department. It is because the abus being taught by the VEIs and the Lecturers (School Cadre) was . The syllabus has been approved by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the standard is of Class is equivalent +2 Vocational Education State Council for Vocational Education and was recognized by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, as equivalent to +2 stage of patron of education for the purpose of 88. Vide order the order that the annual examination of the students of 10+2 classes studying in various vocational educational institutions under the +2 Scheme of vocational education would Education Board instead of Education, Haryana and certificates were also be issued by the said Board. Upon closure of the Vocational Education Scheme in 2007, the existing staff of 31 vocational Education; however, they were kept in a separate pay scale and separate cadre. Some of educational instructors were transferred to the Technical Education Department while few of them were retained in the Industrial The petitioners preferred a writ petition claiming that their job urers (School Cadre) working in the It is because the abus being taught by the VEIs and the Lecturers (School Cadre) was VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment approved by the NCERT, but the petitioners, who were VEIs, had been discriminated in the matter of pay pay-scale of of ` 2000-3500. The writ petitioners further pointed out that their pay scale was placed equivalent to the Masters/ JBT Teachers, who were teaching classes to Matric/ Primary standard. The writ petitions were, therefore, filed before the learned Single Judge cl 5. Government has vocational teachers/ GFC Instructors to the name of Vocational/ GFC Lecturers on the conditions that Vide letter dated 06. petitioners (GFC Instructors), as well as English and Hindi Language Teachers and employees from other trades, was prepared. dated 11.06.2008, 68 VEIs were transferred to different Government Departments including Education Department and Technical Education Department. In 2017, the designation of Vocational/GFC Instructors was changed to Employability Skills Instructor. 6. there was no basis for the petitioners to claim parity in pay scales with employees who were transferred to the different departments with the Lecturers (School Cadre) working in the Education D further submitted that qualifications for two posts were different while Lecturers (School Cadre) were required to possess post LPA No.2075 of 2024 approved by the NCERT, but the petitioners, who were VEIs, had been discriminated in the matter of pay-scales. While the VEIs were placed in the scale of ` 1400-2600 and the Lecturers 3500. The writ petitioners further pointed out that their pay scale was placed equivalent to the Masters/ JBT Teachers, who were teaching classes to Matric/ Primary standard. The writ petitions were, therefore, filed before the learned Single Judge claiming parity of pay As per the additional facts brought on record, the State Government has, principally agreed to change the nomenclature of vocational teachers/ GFC Instructors to the name of Vocational/ GFC Lecturers on the conditions that they shall not demand higher pay Vide letter dated 06.07.2009, a tentative joint seniority list, including the petitioners (GFC Instructors), as well as English and Hindi Language Teachers and employees from other trades, was prepared. dated 11.06.2008, 68 VEIs were transferred to different Government Departments including Education Department and Technical Education Department. In 2017, the designation of Vocational/GFC Instructors was changed to Employability Skills Instructor. The appellants have contested the claim and submitted that there was no basis for the petitioners to claim parity in pay scales with employees who were transferred to the different departments with the Lecturers (School Cadre) working in the Education D further submitted that qualifications for two posts were different while Lecturers (School Cadre) were required to possess post 4 - 5 - approved by the NCERT, but the petitioners, who were VEIs, had been scales. While the VEIs were placed in the 2600 and the Lecturers were given the higher pay-scale 3500. The writ petitioners further pointed out that their pay scale was placed equivalent to the Masters/ JBT Teachers, who were teaching classes to Matric/ Primary standard. The writ petitions were, therefore, filed aiming parity of pay-scale. As per the additional facts brought on record, the State agreed to change the nomenclature of vocational teachers/ GFC Instructors to the name of Vocational/ GFC they shall not demand higher pay-scale. joint seniority list, including the petitioners (GFC Instructors), as well as English and Hindi Language Teachers and employees from other trades, was prepared. Vide notification dated 11.06.2008, 68 VEIs were transferred to different Government Departments including Education Department and Technical Education Department. In 2017, the designation of Vocational/GFC Instructors was The appellants have contested the claim and submitted that there was no basis for the petitioners to claim parity in pay scales with employees who were transferred to the different departments with the Lecturers (School Cadre) working in the Education Department. It was further submitted that qualifications for two posts were different while Lecturers (School Cadre) were required to possess post-graduation approved by the NCERT, but the petitioners, who were VEIs, had been scales. While the VEIs were placed in the scale 3500. The writ petitioners further pointed out that their pay scale was placed equivalent to the Masters/ JBT Teachers, who were teaching classes to Matric/ Primary standard. The writ petitions were, therefore, filed As per the additional facts brought on record, the State agreed to change the nomenclature of vocational teachers/ GFC Instructors to the name of Vocational/ GFC scale. joint seniority list, including the petitioners (GFC Instructors), as well as English and Hindi Language tion dated 11.06.2008, 68 VEIs were transferred to different Government Departments including Education Department and Technical Education Department. In 2017, the designation of Vocational/GFC Instructors was The appellants have contested the claim and submitted that there was no basis for the petitioners to claim parity in pay scales with employees who were transferred to the different departments with the epartment. It was further submitted that qualifications for two posts were different while graduation VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment qualification of M.A./M.Sc. have M.A. Sociology or Economics with Hindi upto Matric. 7. passed in CWP No. 10269 of 2010 Haryana and another had granted VEIs same pay When the scheme was terminated, VEIs were categorized as Vocational Education Instructors, GFC Instructors, Language Teachers Hindi a English. A joint seniority list was also published on 06.07.2009 of the GFC Instructors and the Language Teachers and, therefore, it held that the pay scale was also required to be similar for both of Vocational Education Instructors and the Lecturers ( 8. consideration the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and another the Language Teachers and GFC Instr Vocational Education Institutes were entitled to the same pay admissible to Lecturers in senior secondary schools in the State of Haryana. The GFC Instructors did not press the said petition and it was dismissed qu them. Learned State counsel, therefore, submitted that there is difference in qualification of posts held by the petitioners with that of Lecturers (School Cadre) and pay parity can, therefore, not be admissible. 9. made the following observations: LPA No.2075 of 2024 qualification of M.A./M.Sc. /M.Com. Group have M.A. Sociology or Economics with Hindi upto Matric. Learned Single Judge took into consideration the judgment passed in CWP No. 10269 of 2010 Makhan Singh and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 23.09.2015 and noticed that this Court had granted VEIs same pay-scale as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre). When the scheme was terminated, VEIs were categorized as Vocational Education Instructors, GFC Instructors, Language Teachers Hindi a English. A joint seniority list was also published on 06.07.2009 of the GFC Instructors and the Language Teachers and, therefore, it held that the pay scale was also required to be similar for both of Vocational Education Instructors and the Lecturers (School Cadre). We also notice that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and another 1993 (1) RSJ 648, wherein it was held that the Language Teachers and GFC Instructors working in the Government Vocational Education Institutes were entitled to the same pay admissible to Lecturers in senior secondary schools in the State of Haryana. The GFC Instructors did not press the said petition and it was dismissed qu them. Learned State counsel, therefore, submitted that there is difference in qualification of posts held by the petitioners with that of Lecturers (School Cadre) and pay parity can, therefore, not be admissible. We notice that this Court in Makhan the following observations:- 4 - 6 - /M.Com. Group-B Instructors were required to have M.A. Sociology or Economics with Hindi upto Matric. Learned Single Judge took into consideration the judgment Makhan Singh and others vs State of cided on 23.09.2015 and noticed that this Court scale as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre). When the scheme was terminated, VEIs were categorized as Vocational Education Instructors, GFC Instructors, Language Teachers Hindi and English. A joint seniority list was also published on 06.07.2009 of the GFC Instructors and the Language Teachers and, therefore, it held that the pay scale was also required to be similar for both of Vocational Education School Cadre). also notice that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment of this Court in Ram Chander and others vs 1993 (1) RSJ 648, wherein it was held that uctors working in the Government Vocational Education Institutes were entitled to the same pay-scale as admissible to Lecturers in senior secondary schools in the State of Haryana. The GFC Instructors did not press the said petition and it was dismissed qua them. Learned State counsel, therefore, submitted that there is difference in qualification of posts held by the petitioners with that of Lecturers (School Cadre) and pay parity can, therefore, not be admissible. Makhan Singh’s case (supra), B Instructors were required to Learned Single Judge took into consideration the judgment Makhan Singh and others vs State of cided on 23.09.2015 and noticed that this Court scale as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre). When the scheme was terminated, VEIs were categorized as Vocational nd English. A joint seniority list was also published on 06.07.2009 of the GFC Instructors and the Language Teachers and, therefore, it held that the pay scale was also required to be similar for both of Vocational Education also notice that the learned Single Judge has taken into Ram Chander and others vs 1993 (1) RSJ 648, wherein it was held that uctors working in the Government scale as admissible to Lecturers in senior secondary schools in the State of Haryana. a them. Learned State counsel, therefore, submitted that there is difference in qualification of posts held by the petitioners with that of Lecturers (School s case (supra), VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment 10. and complied with by the appellants giving the pay scale to the concerned writ petitioners as admissible to the Lecturers (School Cadre). The learned Single Judge found that the case of the petitioners c from that of Ram Chander’ for equal work. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the case would not fall within the four corners of (supra). The writ petitions were, accordingly, allowed and learned Single Judge held the petitioner to be entitled for grant of pay scales as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre) in the School Educ from 16.01.1999. 11. grant of pay scales to the Vocational Education Instructors was wrongful. The learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on LPA No.2075 of 2024 “On perusal of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the stand of the respondents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the simple reason that designated as Lecturers and had the ones possessed by the Lecturers in the School Education Department. absorbed in the Education Department would be to similar treatment in matters of pay particularly when there is no distinction between the functions being discharged by both the sets of stated that the petitioners are teaching higher classes 11th and 12th whereas Lecturers in Education Department were teaching The said judgment was upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme and complied with by the appellants giving the pay scale to the concerned writ petitioners as admissible to the Lecturers (School Cadre). The learned Single Judge found that the case of the petitioners c from that of Ram Chander’s case (supra) and applied principle of equal pay for equal work. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the case would not fall e four corners of Makhan Singh (supra). The writ petitions were, accordingly, allowed and learned Single Judge held the petitioner to be entitled for grant of pay scales as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre) in the School Educ from 16.01.1999. In appeal, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the grant of pay scales to the Vocational Education Instructors was wrongful. The learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on 4 - 7 - On perusal of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the respondents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the simple reason that the petitioners were designated as Lecturers and had similar qualification as the ones possessed by the Lecturers in the School The petitioners having been absorbed in the Education Department would be entitled to similar treatment in matters of pay particularly when distinction between the functions being discharged by both the sets of employees. It has been stated that the petitioners are teaching higher classes of 11th and 12th whereas Lecturers in Education Department were teaching classes 9th to 12th.” aid judgment was upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and complied with by the appellants giving the pay scale to the concerned writ petitioners as admissible to the Lecturers (School Cadre). The learned Single Judge found that the case of the petitioners cannot be distinguished s case (supra) and applied principle of equal pay for equal work. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the case would not fall Makhan Singh’s and Ram Chander’s cases (supra). The writ petitions were, accordingly, allowed and learned Single Judge held the petitioner to be entitled for grant of pay scales as admissible to Lecturers (School Cadre) in the School Education Department with effect In appeal, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the grant of pay scales to the Vocational Education Instructors was wrongful. The learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on Makhan Singh’s case On perusal of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the respondents cannot be sustained in the eyes the petitioners were similar qualification as the ones possessed by the Lecturers in the School The petitioners having been entitled to similar treatment in matters of pay particularly when distinction between the functions being It has been of 11th and 12th whereas Lecturers in Education Court and complied with by the appellants giving the pay scale to the concerned writ petitioners as admissible to the Lecturers (School Cadre). The learned annot be distinguished s case (supra) and applied principle of equal pay for equal work. The learned Single Judge, therefore, did not accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the case would not fall ’s cases (supra). The writ petitions were, accordingly, allowed and learned Single Judge held the petitioner to be entitled for grant of pay scales as admissible ation Department with effect In appeal, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the grant of pay scales to the Vocational Education Instructors was wrongful. ’s case VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment (supra) as the petitioners in were working as Instructors in the Vocational Education Institution and had been adjusted in the Education Department, while some Technical Education Department. Since Makhan Singh and another were transferred to School Education Department, there case was not similar to the case of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the writ petitioners were not entitled in Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department and not that which was granted to to the Education Department. 12. Vocational Education Instructors who continued to remain in Industrial Training Department would be entitled to the same pay scale as has been given to their counterparts who were transferred to the School Education Department. In the opinion of this Court, transferring of some of the Vocational Education Instructors to the Technical Education Department or to the State Education Department is a fortuitous circumstance and on the basis similarly placed persons cannot be de has come on record that the educational qualifications as well as teaching pattern of the petitioners is not different from the pattern of education being provided by the erstwhile VEIs designated as School Lecturers. 13. upto +2 and the vocational instructors who continued in vocational institutions have now been also designated as Lecturers (school cadre). LPA No.2075 of 2024 the petitioners in Makhan Singh were working as Instructors in the Vocational Education Institution and had been adjusted in the Education Department, while some Technical Education Department. Since Makhan Singh and another were transferred to School Education Department, there case was not similar to the case of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the writ petitioners were not entitled to draw the same pay of the post which they were drawing in Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department and not that which was granted to Makhan Singh and others to the Education Department. The main issue which needs Vocational Education Instructors who continued to remain in Industrial Training Department would be entitled to the same pay scale as has been given to their counterparts who were transferred to the School Education tment. In the opinion of this Court, transferring of some of the Vocational Education Instructors to the Technical Education Department or to the State Education Department is a fortuitous circumstance and on the basis similarly placed persons cannot be de has come on record that the educational qualifications as well as teaching pattern of the petitioners is not different from the pattern of education being provided by the erstwhile VEIs designated as School Lecturers. We notice that the work being performed and the vocational instructors who continued in vocational institutions have now been also designated as Lecturers (school cadre). 4 - 8 - Makhan Singh’s and Ram Chander’s (cases) were working as Instructors in the Vocational Education Institution and had been adjusted in the Education Department, while some were adjusted in Technical Education Department. Since Makhan Singh and another were transferred to School Education Department, there case was not similar to the case of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the writ petitioners to draw the same pay of the post which they were drawing in Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department and not that Makhan Singh and others, who have been transferred to be decided whether those Vocational Education Instructors who continued to remain in Industrial Training Department would be entitled to the same pay scale as has been given to their counterparts who were transferred to the School Education tment. In the opinion of this Court, transferring of some of the Vocational Education Instructors to the Technical Education Department or to the State Education Department is a fortuitous circumstance and on the basis similarly placed persons cannot be denied similar pay scale. Once it has come on record that the educational qualifications as well as teaching pattern of the petitioners is not different from the pattern of education being provided by the erstwhile VEIs designated as School Lecturers. e notice that the work being performed is of teaching classes and the vocational instructors who continued in vocational institutions have now been also designated as Lecturers (school cadre). (cases) were working as Instructors in the Vocational Education Institution and had adjusted in Technical Education Department. Since Makhan Singh and another were transferred to School Education Department, there case was not similar to the case of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the writ petitioners to draw the same pay of the post which they were drawing in Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department and not that , who have been transferred to be decided whether those Vocational Education Instructors who continued to remain in Industrial Training Department would be entitled to the same pay scale as has been given to their counterparts who were transferred to the School Education tment. In the opinion of this Court, transferring of some of the Vocational Education Instructors to the Technical Education Department or to the State Education Department is a fortuitous circumstance and on the nied similar pay scale. Once it has come on record that the educational qualifications as well as teaching pattern of the petitioners is not different from the pattern of education being es and the vocational instructors who continued in vocational VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment 14. Development & Industrial Training Department, Haryana, qualifications of the writ petitioners and the school Lecturers as per applicable statutory service rules has been placed in would be apposite to quote the same: Initially Applicable Rules Prescribed Qualification Now Applicable Rules Prescribed Qualification LPA No.2075 of 2024 An affidavit has been filed by Additional Director (Tech.) Skill Development & Industrial Training Department, Haryana, qualifications of the writ petitioners and the school Lecturers as per applicable statutory service rules has been placed in would be apposite to quote the same:- Respondents Initially Applicable Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education (Field Offices) Group-C, 1998 Prescribed Qualification As Group Foundation Course Instructors in Vocational Education Institutes (i) Post Graduation Degree in Economics/ Agriculture Economics/ Extension Service Environment Science / Commerce from a recognized university. (ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto matric standard. Now Applicable Industrial Training Department, Haryana, Field Offices (Group-C) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 Prescribed Qualification As Employability Skill Instructors in Skill Development & Industrial Training Department (i) Full time regular mode Master Degree in Business Administration (MBA) after BBA from any recognized university or institute approved by All India Council of Technical Education or Institute established by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India; and (ii) Hindi or Sanskrit as one of these subject in Matric or Higher Education 4 - 9 - An affidavit has been filed by Additional Director (Tech.) Skill Development & Industrial Training Department, Haryana, wherein the qualifications of the writ petitioners and the school Lecturers as per applicable statutory service rules has been placed in a tabulated form. It School Lecturers Haryana Industrial Training and Vocational Education C, 1998 The Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-C) Service Rules, 1998 As Group Foundation Course Instructors in Vocational Post Graduation Degree in Economics/ Agriculture Economics/ Extension Service Environment Science / Commerce from a recognized (ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto (i) M.A. in relevant subject with atleast 50% marks from recognized university; AND (ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto matric standard. Industrial Training , Field C) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 Haryana State Education School Cadre short title (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 As Employability Skill Instructors in Skill Development & Industrial (i) Full time regular mode Master Degree in Business Administration (MBA) after BBA from any recognized university or institute approved by All India Council of Technical Education or Institute established by Ministry of Human Resource ent of (ii) Hindi or Sanskrit as one of these subject in Matric or (i) M.A. in relevant subject with atleast 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized university; AND (ii) Matric with Hindi/ Sanskrit or 10+2/ B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subject, AND (iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teachers’ eligibility Test (HTET) School Teachers Eligibility TEST (STET) (iv) Consistent good academic record. An affidavit has been filed by Additional Director (Tech.) Skill wherein the qualifications of the writ petitioners and the school Lecturers as per a tabulated form. It The Haryana State Education C) (i) M.A. in relevant subject with atleast 50% marks from (ii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Haryana State Education School Cadre short title (i) M.A. in relevant subject with atleast 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized (ii) Matric with Hindi/ Sanskrit or 10+2/ B.A./M.A. as one of the (iii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teachers’ eligibility Test (HTET) School Teachers Eligibility TEST (iv) Consistent good VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment 15. as school Lecturers are different, while the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training is imparting skill based training in different trades to the unemployed youth through the network of industrial training institutes for employment/ sel Engineering trade courses of one and two years duration are being run in the said institutes with the primary objective to provide skill crafts manpower to industries and of the affidavit is extracted below: passed at least 8th grade, 10th grade (Matriculation), o LPA No.2075 of 2024 It has also been stated that the nature of duties being dischar as school Lecturers are different, while the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training is imparting skill based training in different trades to the unemployed youth through the network of industrial training institutes for employment/ self-employment. Engineering trade courses of one and two years duration are being run in the said institutes with the primary objective to provide skill crafts manpower to industries and also provide self employment opportunities of the affidavit is extracted below:- “ITI instructors teach in Industrial Training Institutes, which are focused on practical skills and trades such as electrical work, carpentry, plumbing, welding, mechanics, etc. Their primary focus is to impart hands students for specific trades and industrial jobs.ITI Instructors have technical qualifications like degrees, diplomas, certifications, or ITI-specific certificates. Many I instructors also possess industry experience in the can effectively teach the needed practical skills to the trainees. In Industrial Training Institutes, the curriculum is job oriented and focuses on imparting practical skills, hands training and workshop-based learning. Courses around specific trades like carpentry, plumbing, electronics, automotive mechanics, etc. The curriculum is more specialized and less focused on theoretical knowledge. Students must have passed at least 8th grade, 10th grade (Matriculation), o grade, depending on the trade. Most ITI courses require a minimum of 10th-grade education. For some trades, specific subjects like Science and Mathematics at the 10th required. 4 - 10 - It has also been stated that the nature of duties being discharged as school Lecturers are different, while the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training is imparting skill based training in different trades to the unemployed youth through the network of industrial employment. Engineering and Non- Engineering trade courses of one and two years duration are being run in the said institutes with the primary objective to provide skill crafts manpower to also provide self employment opportunities. The relevant part ITI instructors teach in Industrial Training Institutes, which are focused on practical skills and trades such as electrical work, carpentry, plumbing, welding, mechanics, etc. art hands-on skills that prepare students for specific trades and industrial jobs.ITI Instructors have technical qualifications like degrees, diplomas, specific certificates. Many I instructors also possess industry experience in their trade, ensuring they can effectively teach the needed practical skills to the trainees. In Industrial Training Institutes, the curriculum is job- oriented and focuses on imparting practical skills, hands-on based learning. Courses are designed around specific trades like carpentry, plumbing, electronics, automotive mechanics, etc. The curriculum is more specialized and less focused on theoretical knowledge. Students must have passed at least 8th grade, 10th grade (Matriculation), or 12th grade, depending on the trade. Most ITI courses require a grade education. For some trades, specific subjects like Science and Mathematics at the 10th-grade level is ged as school Lecturers are different, while the Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training is imparting skill based training in different trades to the unemployed youth through the network of industrial - Engineering trade courses of one and two years duration are being run in the said institutes with the primary objective to provide skill crafts manpower to evant part ITI instructors teach in Industrial Training Institutes, which are focused on practical skills and trades such as electrical work, carpentry, plumbing, welding, mechanics, etc. on skills that prepare students for specific trades and industrial jobs.ITI Instructors have technical qualifications like degrees, diplomas, specific certificates. Many I instructors ir trade, ensuring they - on are designed around specific trades like carpentry, plumbing, electronics, automotive mechanics, etc. The curriculum is more specialized and less focused on theoretical knowledge. Students must have r 12th grade, depending on the trade. Most ITI courses require a grade education. For some trades, specific grade level is VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment following state or national curricula (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State ITIs specialized vocational training that equips students with practical skills for imme 16. (supra) is concerned, while originally such persons were working, like the petitioners, in the Vocational Wing they were declared surplus and absorbed in the Education Department. After absorbing in the Education Department, they have been teaching regular classes. Thus, Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as the High Court them to be given the same pay scale as that of the other school lecturers working in the Education Department. However, so far as those who are working in the Skill Development and Industrial Training are concerned, their scope of work and duties i LPA No.2075 of 2024 After completion of the skill training, students are awarded with course certificates specific to their trade from the National Council for Vocational Training, NCVT. Whereas, School lecturers teach in secondary schools (Grades 9-12), focusing on academic subjects like mathematics, science, history, or languages. They deliver formal education following state or national curricula (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). School Lecturers hold Master's degrees. They also have additional qualifications like B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) or M.Ed. (Master of Education), qualifications specific to school education along with the State Teacher Eligibility Certificate. In Schools, the curriculum is theoretical subjects across various disciplines. At the end of secondary education (Grade 10), students receive board certification (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). In schools, Lecturers prepares students for a variety of higher education pathways and career options and in ITIs specialized vocational training that equips students with practical skills for immediate employment in trades and industries.” We also notice that so far as judgment in is concerned, while originally such persons were working, like the petitioners, in the Vocational Wing as Vocational Education Instructors, but they were declared surplus and absorbed in the Education Department. After absorbing in the Education Department, they have been teaching regular classes. Thus, Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as the High Court them to be given the same pay scale as that of the other school lecturers working in the Education Department. However, so far as those who are working in the Skill Development and Industrial Training are concerned, their scope of work and duties is completely different. Initially though the 4 - 11 - After completion of the skill training, students are arded with course certificates specific to their trade from the National Council for Vocational Training, NCVT. Whereas, School lecturers teach in secondary schools 12), focusing on academic subjects like mathematics, ages. They deliver formal education following state or national curricula (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). School Lecturers hold Master's degrees. They also have additional qualifications like B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) or M.Ed. (Master of Education), which are teaching qualifications specific to school education along with the State In Schools, the curriculum is theoretical subjects across various disciplines. At the end of secondary education (Grade eive board certification (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). In schools, Lecturers prepares students for a variety of higher education pathways and career options and in ITIs specialized vocational training that equips students with diate employment in trades and We also notice that so far as judgment in Makhan Singh’s case is concerned, while originally such persons were working, like the as Vocational Education Instructors, but they were declared surplus and absorbed in the Education Department. After absorbing in the Education Department, they have been teaching regular classes. Thus, Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as the High Court directed them to be given the same pay scale as that of the other school lecturers working in the Education Department. However, so far as those who are working in the Skill Development and Industrial Training are concerned, s completely different. Initially though the After completion of the skill training, students are arded with course certificates specific to their trade from the Whereas, School lecturers teach in secondary schools 12), focusing on academic subjects like mathematics, ages. They deliver formal education following state or national curricula (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). School Lecturers hold Master's degrees. They also have additional qualifications like B.Ed. (Bachelor of which are teaching qualifications specific to school education along with the State In Schools, the curriculum is theoretical subjects across various disciplines. At the end of secondary education (Grade eive board certification (e.g., CBSE, ICSE, State Boards). In schools, Lecturers prepares students for a variety of higher education pathways and career options and in ITIs specialized vocational training that equips students with diate employment in trades and s case is concerned, while originally such persons were working, like the as Vocational Education Instructors, but they were declared surplus and absorbed in the Education Department. After absorbing in the Education Department, they have been teaching regular irected them to be given the same pay scale as that of the other school lecturers working in the Education Department. However, so far as those who are working in the Skill Development and Industrial Training are concerned, s completely different. Initially though the VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment VEIs were teaching upto class twelfth in the vocational classes but after bifurcation into three departments i.e. Technical Education, Secondary Education and Industrial Training Institutes, the scope of trainin cannot be said to be similar to that of Education Department. 17. with regard to their skill and work and also with reference to the students to whom they are providing training. The scale on the basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 18. distinguishable on facts. We find that the learned Single Judge has erred in following the law as laid dow writ petitions. In originally working as Language Teachers in various VEIs. They can claim parity with Lecturers working in senior secondary schools, which was granted to them. So far as GFC Instructors are concerned, they are imparting training in various Vocational Fields and cannot be said to be imparting education of +2 under the regular education system. The syllabus is also different. 19. expected to have expertise to grant equivalence to the employees with regard to pay scales and it is exclusively in the domain of the administration to decide as to what pay scales should be given to Each department has different job, syllabus as well as the field of education. Scope of duties LPA No.2075 of 2024 VEIs were teaching upto class twelfth in the vocational classes but after bifurcation into three departments i.e. Technical Education, Secondary Education and Industrial Training Institutes, the scope of trainin cannot be said to be similar to that of Education Department. In our opinion, both the classes of teachers are distinguishable with regard to their skill and work and also with reference to the students to whom they are providing training. They can, therefore, not claim same pay scale on the basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Similarly the case of Ram Chander’ distinguishable on facts. We find that the learned Single Judge has erred in following the law as laid down in Ram Chander’ writ petitions. In Ram Chander’s case (supra) originally working as Language Teachers in various VEIs. They can claim parity with Lecturers working in senior secondary schools, which was anted to them. So far as GFC Instructors are concerned, they are imparting training in various Vocational Fields and cannot be said to be imparting education of +2 under the regular education system. The syllabus is also The Courts while sitting in judicial review would not be expected to have expertise to grant equivalence to the employees with regard to pay scales and it is exclusively in the domain of the administration to decide as to what pay scales should be given to Each department has different job, syllabus as well as the field of education. Scope of duties is different; responsibilities are also different; 4 - 12 - VEIs were teaching upto class twelfth in the vocational classes but after bifurcation into three departments i.e. Technical Education, Secondary Education and Industrial Training Institutes, the scope of training in it cannot be said to be similar to that of Education Department. In our opinion, both the classes of teachers are distinguishable with regard to their skill and work and also with reference to the students to y can, therefore, not claim same pay scale on the basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Ram Chander’s case (supra) is also distinguishable on facts. We find that the learned Single Judge has erred in Ram Chander’s case (supra) to allow the s case (supra), the petitioners were originally working as Language Teachers in various VEIs. They can claim parity with Lecturers working in senior secondary schools, which was anted to them. So far as GFC Instructors are concerned, they are imparting training in various Vocational Fields and cannot be said to be imparting education of +2 under the regular education system. The syllabus is also The Courts while sitting in judicial review would not be expected to have expertise to grant equivalence to the employees with regard to pay scales and it is exclusively in the domain of the administration to decide as to what pay scales should be given to a particular set of employees. Each department has different job, syllabus as well as the field of education. different; responsibilities are also different; and education VEIs were teaching upto class twelfth in the vocational classes but after bifurcation into three departments i.e. Technical Education, Secondary in it In our opinion, both the classes of teachers are distinguishable with regard to their skill and work and also with reference to the students to y can, therefore, not claim same pay is also distinguishable on facts. We find that the learned Single Judge has erred in to allow the , the petitioners were originally working as Language Teachers in various VEIs. They can claim parity with Lecturers working in senior secondary schools, which was anted to them. So far as GFC Instructors are concerned, they are imparting training in various Vocational Fields and cannot be said to be imparting education of +2 under the regular education system. The syllabus is also The Courts while sitting in judicial review would not be expected to have expertise to grant equivalence to the employees with regard to pay scales and it is exclusively in the domain of the administration to a particular set of employees. Each department has different job, syllabus as well as the field of education. education VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment qualifications are also different. We, therefore, order dated 16.02.2024 accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed. 20. 21. 28th May, 202 vs Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable LPA No.2075 of 2024 qualifications are also different. We, therefore, dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. No costs. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) 2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 4 - 13 - qualifications are also different. We, therefore, are unable to uphold the passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No uphold the passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.29 13:36 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment