Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2190 (PNJ)

C. Sharma v. State Of Punjab

2007-12-17

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2007
Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks direction for release of leave encashment payment of difference of basic pay on account of revised fixation under the bunching scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1996, payment of difference of allowances like DA, HRA, Medical etc. other arrears. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined as Lecturer on 1970 with respondent No. 3 College, which was an aided college, receiving aid as per the scheme of the Panjab Government. Petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2002 after 32 years of service and made a claim for retiral benefits. The petitioner filed CWP No. 15433 of 2003, which was disposed of on 21.12.2005, Annexure P. 3 with a direction for payment of gratuity. Accordingly, gratuity has been released to the petitioner but salary for earned leave has not been paid as per Regulation 9 of Chapter X of the Panjab University Calendar read with Rules 8.116, 8.117, 8.119 and 8.121 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I (Part-I). This Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2005 in CWP No. 111 of 2004, RS Sidhu and others v. State of Punjab. and others, Annexure P. 9 held that a college could not with-hold amounts due to a teacher only on the ground that that grant-in-aid was not received. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mutajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samark Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607; 1990(7) SLR 154 (SC)]. Again vide judgment dated 7.11.2005 in CWP No,. 3864 of 2003 Annexure P.10, direction for meeting the claim of a teacher for leave encashment and arrears of salary as per para 9 of the Panjab University Calendar, Vol. III, Chapter X, was issued. Again, vide order dated 18.9 2003 in CWP No. 9446 of 2002, Annexure P. 11, direction for leave encashment was issued. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, stand taken is that Provident Fund dues of the petitioner have been settled. Gratuity has also been paid. Financial assistance for revision of pay scales, is to be provided by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of their additional expenditure for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 and thereafter, the liability is to be borne by the State Government. Since the College had not received 95% of the grant-in-aid, the liability was not discharged. Financial assistance for revision of pay scales, is to be provided by the Central Government to the extent of 80% of their additional expenditure for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000 and thereafter, the liability is to be borne by the State Government. Since the College had not received 95% of the grant-in-aid, the liability was not discharged. The scheme of the State Government has been annexed as Annexure D-3. Circular of the Central Government dated 27.7.1998 is Annexure D. 4. Letter dated 24.3.1999 issued by the State of Punjab revising pay scale of Privately Affiliated Aided Colleges w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is Annexure D-5. Letter dated 10.3.1999 of the State of Punjab revising the scales of pay of teaching personnel and academic staff of the University and Government colleges is along with Annexure D.S. Vide judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2002 in CWP No. 17577 of 2001 Suram Singh v. State of Punjab. and others, Annexure D9, it was directed that gratuity is to be paid by the College, while the arrears of revision of pay scales from 1.1.1996 were to be paid on receipt of aid from the State Government. Further, vide order of this Court dated 7.8.2002 in CWP No. 10097 of 2000, Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab. and others, Annexure D-10, it was directed that arrears of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 had to be paid on receipt of aid from the State Government and a direction for release of the said benefits was issued. 4. No reply has been filed by the State of Punjab, through notice was issued on 9.3.2007. The State of Punjab has entered appearance also. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. We find that issue of claim of the teachers of Aided Colleges has been considered in several orders of this Court, which can be summarised as under :- (i) Judgment of DB of this Court dated 21.12.2005 in CWP No. 149 of 2005, Gurdial Kaur Padda v. State of Punjab. and others, holding that gratuity was payable to the teachers of Aided Colleges affiliated to a University and the said liability is to be met by the colleges. Reference was also made to earlier judgments of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1996 (2) PLR 1 13 : [1996(2) SLR 757 (Pb. and others, holding that gratuity was payable to the teachers of Aided Colleges affiliated to a University and the said liability is to be met by the colleges. Reference was also made to earlier judgments of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 1996 (2) PLR 1 13 : [1996(2) SLR 757 (Pb. & Hry.)]., Hindu College Governing Council and another v. Shri N.D. Malhotra and another, 1993 (1) RSJ 757. and Surjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2005 (1) RSJ 697 : [2005(1) SLR 432 (Pb. & Hry.)]. Reference was also made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association v. Administrative Officer, JT 2004 (2) SC 27 : [2004(1) SLR 705 (SC)]. and the said judgment was held to be distinguishable. (ii) The issue of leave encashment has been settled in a DB judgment of this Court dated 14.2.2005 in CWP No. 10518 of 2003, Mohan Singh v. State of Puniab and others, and it was held that the College being affiliated to University, leave encashment was liable to be paid. Reliance was placed on earlier judgments of this Court in Ajmer Singh Hindu College and judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta (supra) and it was held that liability for leave encashment was of the College. (iii) The issue of revised pay has been dealt with in Suram Singh and Sadhu Singh (supra) and while in Suram Singh, (supra), a direction was issued that arrears of revision of pay scales will be given on receipt of grant from the State Government in Sadhu Singh, (supra), it was directed that the State Government should release the grant. From the scheme of grant-in- aid, Annexure D3, it is clear that for pay and allowances, grant-in-aid has to be paid. From Annexure D4, circular of the Central Government dated 27.7.1998, the Central Government has provided financial assistance to the State Government who revised pay scales to the extent of 80 of the additional expenditure involved and the State Governments were to meet the remaining 20% expenditure. The State of Punjab vide notification dated 24.3.1999, Annexure D5 revised the pay scales of Privately Affiliated Colleges in the State of Punjab at par with the Government Colleges w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 7. The State of Punjab vide notification dated 24.3.1999, Annexure D5 revised the pay scales of Privately Affiliated Colleges in the State of Punjab at par with the Government Colleges w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 7. From the above, it is clear that liability to give arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is of the State of Punjab and 95% aid has to be given by the State Government. 8. Accordingly, we direct that leave encashment benefit be given by Respondent No. 2-management of the College, irrespective of aid from the State, while arrears of pay be given by Respondent No. 3 College within one month from the date of receipt of the aid from the State in that regard. The State of Punjab is directed to release benefits for the arrears within three months from today. 9. We make it clear that we have not dealt with any other issue except leave encashment and arrears as a result of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996. If any other issue survives, the petitioner will be at liberty to take any other remedy in accordance with law. 10. The petition is disposed of in above terms.