Nimyanti Devi v. State Of Haryana & ANR

  


 

  
 

 

!"# $%

#&'('$) *  +,+

, '-.!)"'

#/'

+++#"'"'$)#0 1#0(2( 3"!"# $% !0.!)!

!)4 !)$"5#0 +++#(6$)4#)"(
 

 

   
  

 

    

       

 

    







 



  !

!

" 

# 

#

 $%

  % "%  &' () !*+)

& $

% #

 ,%

  $%  





   - 

 

'

$

   

 % #

!*+) "%  



 



$%

 $%  #   !*.'/!*.0

$

 %  % #

-   # 

 # $%1





#  % #  

 



 % 2%#

1

%# 3% "

3



4 0)!0 &((.

 



"# $ % "

 &  

'( % "

)   (+ (! &(!( "









  %

 



  +  

   



 

  ,%

  



    $%  



 

 %   - 

  %

 

1

%# 3% "

 

'( '(!) 

1

%# 3% "

% 

 %

 #   #  $% #

,% ,%

  ,%



$%5#

$%

 



#

$% 

# - 

  

 

 2%#

% / "23. Thus a perusal of the Educational Service Rules which have been prevailing from 1955 undergoing amendments from time to time and the subsequent government policy letters and circulars show that the Teachers are not entitled to higher scales of pay applicable to the posts of Lecturers automatically on their acquiring postgraduate qualifications or such qualifications as are prescribed for the post of Lecturers. We have already pointed

out that the post of Lecturers has throughout been governed by different sets of rules and never by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules, 1955 or the amendments thereto. Hence, the common question raised in these matters has to be answered in the negative against the Teachers/Masters/Mistresses some of whom are respondents in Civil Appeal No. 4304 of 1990 and the others being petitioners in SLPs and appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 1998."
.

$





 

#

  

 2

1

%# 3% "

 

 

'( '(! ) 4 % #  % 



# 

7#
 #

%

   



    60'7  "58

,

3 3 3