Approaching Court After 12+ Years Not Bona Fide Conduct: Supreme Court On School Lecturers’ Pay Scale Dispute
The appeals before the Supreme Court were directed against the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
While dealing with a dispute pertaining to the entitlement of pay scale of School Lecturers, the Supreme Court has held that approaching the Court after more than twelve years, cannot be regarded as bona fide conduct. The Apex Court also held that the Execution Court cannot travelled beyond the order sought to be executed or go behind its interpretation.
The appeals before the Apex Court were directed against the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court regarding the issue of pay scale of School Lecturers.
The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “In the present case, there was no representation whatsoever much less any proceedings before an appropriate forum initiated by the respondents until the judgment in LPA No.105 of 2010 and its analogous cases dated 13.12.2012. The cause of action arose between the years 1998 and 2000. Thus, approaching the Court after more than twelve years, cannot be regarded as bona fide conduct.”
“The respondents shall be entitled to the pay scale as reflected in the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No.105 of 2010 and its analogous cases, namely, the initial of the pay scale attached to the posts of JBT Teachers, as revised from time to time”, it ordered.
Advocate General Anoop Kumar Rattan represented the Petitioner while AOR Radhika Gautam represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The execution proceedings were initiated by the respondents for implementation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondents was disposed of by directing the appellants that in case the respondents were found to be similarly situated to the respondents in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rakesh Chand and Others (2010) and connected matters, similar treatment would be extended to them.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellants that the High Court ought not to have granted any relief to the respondents for the reason that they were appointed sometime between 1998 and 2000 and were fence-sitters, who approached the High Court only after the judgment came to be passed in Rakesh Chand (supra) in LPA No.105 of 2010 and analogous cases.
The respondents contended that while deciding the batch of cases, the High Court had recorded that LPA No.108 of 2012 filed by the State stood dismissed. It was submitted that the LPA arose out of a decision, whereby JBT Teachers were held entitled to the pay scale along with admissible allowances. As per the respondents, the impugned order fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court and suffered from no infirmity, as the principle regarding entitlement to fixed basic pay along with allowances had already been upheld.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that in the impugned order, the High Court had misdirected itself by going behind the order, the implementation whereof was sought in the execution proceedings. The Apex Court noted that the Division Bench had categorically held that JBT Teachers appointed on a contract basis would be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the posts of JBT Teachers, as revised from time to time. It was further clarified that the principle applied in the case of JBT Teachers would, in equal force, apply to the posts of School Lecturers appointed on a contract basis.
The Bench further noticed that LPA No.108 of 2012 related to JBT Teachers, whereas it was an admitted position that the respondents were School Lecturers. “There is absolutely no explanation as to why despite being aware of the said judgment, the respondents, though not JBT Teachers, did not specifically plead before the High Court in their writ petition that their case was also covered by the principle laid down in the proceedings culminating in LPA No.108 of 2012”, it stated.
The Bench thus held that the respondents would be entitled to the initial of the pay scale attached to the posts of JBT Teachers, as revised from time to time. “Thus, the respondents would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs.6,400/- prior to 31.12.2005 and Rs.10,300/- with effect from 01.01.2006, as a necessary consequence of the order passed by the High Court, which was required only to be implemented”, it ordered while allowing the appeals.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Jameet Singh and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 885)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate General Anoop Kumar Rattan, AOR Nishant Kumar, Advocates Anubhav Sharma, Puneet Rajta
Respondent: AOR Radhika Gautam