ORDER : S.C. Agrawal, J. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 20783 of 1996. 2. Special leave granted. 3. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 19-8-1994 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in various writ petitions filed by the respondents. By the said orders, the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court in accordance with the earlier decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 876 of 1988 decided on 24-3-1994. The said decision was in the case of Gulshan Lal Aul which came up in appeal before this Court and vide judgment dated 8-7-1996 in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 this Court has laid down that the teachers in privately managed aided schools in the State of Punjab could claim parity in pay scales with teachers in Government schools but they could not claim the benefits relating to increments on the basis of higher qualifications which had been granted to teachers in Government schools under instructions dated 1-9-1960 which instructions are no longer operative after the passing of the order dated 19-2-1979. 4. On behalf of the State of Punjab, it is submitted that these appeals are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, 1996) 5 SCC 325 and should be disposed of in terms of that judgment. When the matter came up before this Court on 14-3-1997 before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, the following order was passed: "The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that there is a conflict between the decision in the State of Haryana v. Rajpal Sharma, (1996) 5 SCC 273 and the decision in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 . The counsel, therefore, request that the matter may be placed before a three-Judge Bench. We accede to this request. Let the matters be listed before a three-Judge Bench." In accordance with the said direction, these matters have been placed before us. The counsel, therefore, request that the matter may be placed before a three-Judge Bench. We accede to this request. Let the matters be listed before a three-Judge Bench." In accordance with the said direction, these matters have been placed before us. Our attention has been invited to another order dated 21-3-1997 passed in SLP (C) No. 1014 of 1997 State of Haryana v. Ram Atri, LP (C) No. 1014 of 1997, order dated 21-3-1997, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 195 whereby the said special leave petition was directed to be placed before a Bench of three Judges for the same reasons as are given in the order dated 14-3-1997. Civil Appeal No. 3329 of 1997 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1014 of 1997 has been disposed of by a Bench of three learned Judges by order dated 1-5-1997. In the said order, the Court has said: "We do not find any conflict between the two judgments. Nothing, therefore, requires to be resolved insofar as the two judgments are concerned. We have examined the order impugned before us. As we understand the decision of the High Court, it implies that the cases of the respondents shall be considered in accordance with law in the light of the judgments of this Court referred to in the impugned order and the respondents be granted relief, if they are found entitled to the same, in law and on facts. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are some other judgments of this Court, which have a bearing on the matter and the appellants should not be restricted to confine the consideration of the cases of the respondents only on the basis of the judgments referred to in the impugned order. We, therefore, clarify that the appellant-State shall be entitled to take into consideration any other judgment of this Court also, relevant to the subject under consideration, while deciding the cases of the respondents." Shri R.S. Sodhi, the learned counsel for the appellant-State, has placed reliance on the aforesaid order of this Court. We, therefore, clarify that the appellant-State shall be entitled to take into consideration any other judgment of this Court also, relevant to the subject under consideration, while deciding the cases of the respondents." Shri R.S. Sodhi, the learned counsel for the appellant-State, has placed reliance on the aforesaid order of this Court. Shri Sodhi has also submitted that a distinction has to be made between a case arising from the State of Punjab and a case arising from the State of Haryana and that in State of Haryana v. Rajpal Sharma, (1996) 5 SCC 273 this Court was dealing with teachers employed in the State of Haryana while in the case of State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 this Court was dealing with teachers employed in the State of Punjab and that the present cases are governed by the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 . 5. Shri G.K. Chatrath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has, however, urged that the decision in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 needs reconsideration since it does not lay down the correct law and that in the State of Punjab, the teachers employed in privately managed aided schools are entitled to the same benefits in the matter of pay as are available to the teachers in the State of Haryana. The learned counsel has placed before us the notifications dated 23-7-1959, 1-9-1960 and 19-2-1979 issued by the Government of Punjab and the Punjab State Education Service (Class III) Rules, 1955. The submission is that having regard to the aforementioned Rules and the notifications, the teachers in privately managed aided schools are entitled to the same benefits of higher pay scale as well as increments in such pay scale that are available to teachers in Government schools who acquire higher qualifications while in service. 6. The entitlement to higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualifications while in service has been considered by this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 . 6. The entitlement to higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualifications while in service has been considered by this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 . Taking note of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Punjab State Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which gives protection to teachers of private schools by providing that scale of pay and dearness allowance of the employees of privately managed recognised schools shall not be less than those of the employees of the State Government holding corresponding posts in the schools run by the State Government, this Court has held that the said benefit of higher pay scale on acquiring higher qualifications which is given to teachers in Government schools would also be available to teachers in privately managed aided schools. Shri Chatrath is, therefore, right in his submission that the respondents are entitled to the same pay scale that is given on the basis of qualifications to teachers in Government schools. This position is not disputed by Shri Sodhi. 7. But as regards entitlement to increments in pay on the basis of acquiring higher qualifications, we find that the said benefit has been made available to teachers in Government schools under instructions dated 1-9-1960. In State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 this Court has expressed the view that under Section 7 of the Act, protection is available to teachers in privately managed aided schools in respect of parity in pay scale and dearness allowance only and not in respect of any other benefit which is granted to teachers in Government schools and, therefore, teachers in privately managed aided schools cannot claim the benefits which were being given to teachers in Government schools under the instructions dated 1-9-1960. We are in agreement with the view taken by this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 in that regard. 8. We are in agreement with the view taken by this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 in that regard. 8. In the circumstances, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal, (1996) 5 SCC 325 and it is held that while the respondents are entitled to a higher pay scale as is available to teachers in Government schools on the basis of higher qualifications but they cannot claim benefit of any increment in such pay scale on the basis of their acquiring higher qualifications which benefit had been granted to teachers in Government schools. 9. No order as to costs.