Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1272 (PNJ)

Sarup Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab

2005-12-13

NIRMAL YADAV, S.S.NIJJAR

body2005
JUDGMENT NIRMAL YADAV, J. 1. Petitioner with academic qualification of M. Sc. in Mathematics was appointed as lecturer in November 1973, on regular basis in Khalsa College, Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur. The College is affiliated to Punjab University and service conditions of its employees are governed under the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Teachers) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. The College receives grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% from the Government of Punjab and as such, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution being State/other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner had submitted resignation in the month of June 1979 to contest elections of the Municipal Committee after seeking prior permission of respondents No. 3 and 4. In the year 1983, the Managing Committee of the College changed and they directed the petitioner to proceed on extra-ordinary leave with effect from 10-12-1983. He did not want to proceed on extra- ordinary leave without pay and wanted to serve the College, therefore, he resigned from the office of Municipal Committee with effect from 08-12-1983, which was accepted by the Government vide Gazette Notification dated 2/3.1.1984. The petitioner represented that period with effect from 10.12.1983 to 24.12.1983 may be treated as leave of the kind due as the college remained closed for winter vacations and he be treated of duty with effect from 25-12-1983. The petitioner was, however, not allowed to join service. In the month of May 1984, the President of the Managing Committee again called for explanation of the petitioner as to why he contested the election and terminated his services. Aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 3 and 4, petitioner submitted appeal against the order of termination. His appeal was accepted by the Director public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab. While allowing the appeal, respondents no. 3 and 4 were directed to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits. The operative part of the order is reproduced below :- “Thus from the foregoing and from the documentary evidences placed on the record, it is quite clear that there is no violation of any kind of mandatory provisions of the Punjab University Calendar on the part of Shri Sarup Singh Sahota nor evidence on the record does bring home any lapse on his part. Ipso-facto Shri Sarup Singh Sahota continues in the service of the College and he will be fully entitled to pay, allowances and other benefits from the day he is not being allowed to join forcibly by the college authorities.” Still, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties and, therefore, he had to make several representations. Thereafter, petitioner was allowed to join his duties only at the intervention of respondent No. 2 i.e. Director Public Instructions (Colleges) and an undertaking was also obtained from respondent No. 4 to the effect that arrears of the petitioner will be cleared after his joining college with effects from 05- 12-1985. Since then the petitioner has been continuously working with respondent No. 3. The petitioner was confirmed in the year 1974 and had completed 16 years of continuous service in the month of November 1990. Therefore, he was placed in the selection grade of Rs. 3700- 5700/- with effect from 01-09-1990. He was continuously paid the selection grade upto 31-10-14992, but therefore the respondents unilaterally decided to withdraw the benefit of selection grade with effect from 01-09-1990. The recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner for the period commencing from 01-09-1990 to 31-10-1992 was ordered to be made. These orders were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 6025 of 1993, which was admitted and is pending adjudication before this court. In the meantime, the pay scale of teachers working in Government colleges and privately managed colleges were revised with effect from 1.1.1996 and after the general pay revision, the pay scale of the petitioner has been revised to Rs. 12000-18300/- and, therefore, he is liable to be granted revised pay scale from 1.1.1996. The petitioner is, however, not granted the revised pay scale nor his pay has been fixed in the revised pay scale. He is being paid salary and allowance as per the pre-revised/old pay scale only. Since the respondents did not grant the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- with effect from 1.9.1992, he submitted several representations and ultimately approached this Court by filing CPW No. 1504 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to take a decision on the representations within a period of two months vide order dated 10.2.2004. 3700-5700/- with effect from 1.9.1992, he submitted several representations and ultimately approached this Court by filing CPW No. 1504 of 2004. The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to take a decision on the representations within a period of two months vide order dated 10.2.2004. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents passed the order dated 22.4.2004 stating that as per resolution No. 643 dated 12-09-2001, the Education committee of respondent No. 2 has approved fixation of pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- with effect from 27-08-1992 and in the grade of Rs. 12000-18300/- with effect from 1.1.1996. However, the case is pending in the office of Education Committee for grant of suitable funds as respondent-College is receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. The respondent-College is shifting its responsibility on the department. The respondent- College in letter-annexure P-11 has stated that College shall grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- with effect from 27.8.1992 with next date of increment as 01-08-1992 and further grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and fix his pay at Rs. 12420/- per month with next date of increment as 1.1.1997 upon clearance of his case of salary/verification by the DPI (Colleges), Punjab, as the post of lecturer is covered under 95% deficit grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. This decision of the College shall be subject to the decision of C.P.W. No. 6025 of 1993, which is pending before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. 3. In the written statement filed by respondents No..3 and 4, it is submitted that Education Committee of Shiromani Gurdwar Prabandhak Committee on 21.04.2001 has taken the decision for fixing the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700/- after taking out the period of leave without pay. Subsequently, vide resolution No. 643, the pay was ordered to be fixed with effect from 1.9.1990 and he was also granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300/- subject to the approval of DPI (Colleges) and decision of C.W.P. No. 6025 of 1993. It further finds mention that grant-in-aid is yet to be received from the Government and that the payment shall be made thereafter. 4. 12000-18300/- subject to the approval of DPI (Colleges) and decision of C.W.P. No. 6025 of 1993. It further finds mention that grant-in-aid is yet to be received from the Government and that the payment shall be made thereafter. 4. In the written statement file by Director, Public Instructions, Punjab (respondent No. 2), it is stated that the pay of the petitioner is to be fixed by the College-authorities should first disburse the salary to the staff and then make claim of 95% of the deficit grant-in-aid. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. From the facts on record, we are constrained to note that the respondent-College is not making the payment of salary to the petitioner. We are not inclined to accept the plea taken by respondents no. 3 and 4 that payment shall be made only on receipt of grant-in-aid. The petitioner has already filed two writ petitions for fixation of pay and grant of selection grade. This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner. Still, the respondent-college is adopting an indifferent attitude towards the petitioner, which is wholly unjustified. Even respondent No. 1 and 2 have categorically stated in preliminary objections of their written statement that respondent-College should first make the payment of salary to its teachers and then raised a claim for deficit grant-in aid. A teacher is in no manner, concerned with the deficit grant-in-aid which has to be sorted out by the College and DPI inter-se. 7. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direction the respondent-College to grant the selection grade of Rs. 3700-5700/- in the pre-revised scale with effect from 1.9.1990 and to further grant the revised pay scale of Rs. 12000- 18300/- with effect from 1.1.1996 to the petitioner, within a fortnight, which would, however, be subject to the decision of the earlier writ petitioner filed by the petitioner i.e. CPW No. 6025 of 1993.