Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 283 (HP)

BUDHI RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-07-06

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2007
JUDGMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice-Chairman.—The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Direct the respondents to deem the applicant as Pandit/Lecturer from the date he was transferred to Sanskrit College and permanently absorb as such; (b) Direct the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the Applicant as has been given to the other similarly situated persons in O.A. No. 1111/1994 titled as Hem Prabha v State of H.V. and others." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Shastri in School cadre on 18.8.1980 and was posted on transfer in Sanskrit College, Nahan against the post of Pandit/Head Pandit on 19.9.1998 (Annexure A-4) and joined duties there as such on 25.9.1998 being duly qualified to hold the said post. The applicant possess the qualifications of Shashtri, Vyakarna Acharaya (A-l), MA (Hind), MA (Sanskrit) (A-2) and M. Phil (A-3), before joining at Nahan. As per UGC norms, a candidate doing M. Phil, or Ph.D. before 31.12.1993 is eligible for the post of Lecturer in College Cadre even without NET or SET. As per the applicant he is fully eligible for appointment for the post of college lecturer. The applicant contends that since he was posted on his transfer to Sanskrit College/ he no longer remained a Teacher belonging to School Cadre and hence ceased to belong to the School Cadre of the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh/ hence he was entitled to all consequential benefits. 3. In reply filed by the Respondents, it has been stated that the applicant was temporarily deputed in Sanskrit Pathshala, (Now College) Nahan in his own pay scale as admitted by the applicant, but at this stage he cannot claim the post of College (Lecturer^ unless he appears before the appropriate commission for appointment as Lecturer in College cadre (Sanskrit) after observing all codal formalities, which are required to be observed by the Service Commission and that the contention of the applicant that he is duly qualified cannot automatically make him Lecturer College Cadre (Sanskrit). So far as judgment passed in OA 1111/ 94, Hem Prabha v. State, is concerned, the same is admitted by the respondent department in its reply to para (7). 4. I have heard the learned Counsels for the rival parties and gone through their pleadings carefully. So far as judgment passed in OA 1111/ 94, Hem Prabha v. State, is concerned, the same is admitted by the respondent department in its reply to para (7). 4. I have heard the learned Counsels for the rival parties and gone through their pleadings carefully. The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the pronouncement of this Tribunal in OA No. 944/96 titled Rama Nand v. State, decided on March 1, 2002. This Tribunal has decided similar issue in another case i.e. T.A. No. 106/87 decided on 3.8.1993, wherein it was held that the Sanskrit Institutions are equivalent to Government Colleges and this fact was not disputed by the Government. In CWP No. 455/76, it was further observed that Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya are Colleges like other Colleges of the State and the teachers in these colleges are Lecturers like Lecturers in other Colleges and these Lecturers be given the same pay scale and status as the other Lecturers in other Colleges of the State. 5. Sanskrit College Lecturers have been divided into two categories i.e. Pandit and Oriental Teachers and both have the same and similar functions and have the similar qualification. The applicant is being treated as Shastri/Oriental teacher though he is discharging the duties akin to Pandits. 6. That learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed that the main proposition raised in the present case is fully covered vide judgment in OA No. 1111/94 titled as Hem Prabha v. State of H.R, but he has tried to distinguish the said judgment on the plea that the appointment of applicant Hem Prabha in that case had been approved by the H.P. University where as in the present case, no such approval has been given to the present applicant. 7. The learned-Counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention1 to the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in TA No. 192/2002 titled as Chatter Singh v. State of H.P., wherein it has been specifically held by this Tribunal in Para-7 that the approval granted by the University is merely formality and does not entitle the applicant for any benefit. It is not disputed that even the judgment in the case of Chatter Singh (supra) has been implemented by the State. It is not disputed that even the judgment in the case of Chatter Singh (supra) has been implemented by the State. In this view of the matter, relief cannot be denied to the present applicant merely on the ground that his appointment was not approved by the H.P. University, when it has already been held that approval of the University is a merely formality. 8. It may be pointed out at this stage that in case of one Shri Mahindar Sharma, who retired as TGT from the Sanskrit College, the State created a tenure post of Pandit temporarily in UGC pay scale for Government Sanskrit College, Solan for the period from 11.7.1980 to 31.8.1994 in order to give the benefit of pay scale of Pandit to Shri Mahindar Sharma. Averments to this effect have been noticed by this Tribunal in its decision in O.A. No. 357 of 2000, Keshwanand v State of H.P., wherein a mention has been made to Notification dated 24.8.1995, Annexure A-8 with that O.A. whereby the benefit of the pay scale of Pandit was granted to Shri Mahindar Sharma. These averments have not been controverted. 9. In view of above said factual and legal background, and catena of cases decided by this Tribunal already, the present OA is allowed in terms of decision in O.A. 1111/94 with the direction to treat the applicant as Pandit with effect from the date he joined Sanskrit College and he will be entitled to the pay scale as applicable to the other similarly situated persons. However, the arrears of salary would be admissible for a period of three years from the date of filing the present application, with difference of arrears of pay with all consequential benefits like that granted to Shri Mahindar Sharma, TGT. In the light of above the original application stands disposed of. No order as to cost. -