Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 297 (HP)

KALI RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-07-12

B.S.CHAUHAN, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2007
JUDGEMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman:- The applicant has filed Original Application praying mainly for the following reliefs:- "(a); Direct the respondents to circulate the final seniority list of the Shashtris with qualification of Acharaya/ Sahityacharya immediately; (b) Direct the respondents department to hold Departmental Promotion Committee for promoting or granting the scale of Pandit/Head Pandit in accordance with R&P Rules; (a) Direct the respondent department to consider the applicant for promotion or grant of scale/grade of Pandit/Head Pandit in DPC so constituted; (b) Direct the respondent department to grant the scale/grade or promotion to the post of Pandit/Head Pandit from the date his juniors were given such promotions, scales grade; (c) Direct the respondent department to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Pandit/Head Pandit or for the grant of scale/grade of Pandit/ Head Pandit on adhoc basis till the DPC is held on regular basis in accordance with the seniority of the applicant: (d) Direct the respondent department to post the Shashtris with the qualification of Acharya in the Sanskrit College/Pathshalas in accordance with their interse seniority: (e) Direct the respondent to produce all the relevant documents for perusal by this Honble Tribunal alongwith their reply; (f) Allow the cost of this O.A: (g) Pass such other order or directions as deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant." 2. The applicant has done Shashtri (equivalent to B.A.) in the year, 1972 and thereafter the applicant has acquired the qualification of Sahitaya Acharya (equivalent to M.A.) in the year, 1982 (Annexure-A-1). He was initially appointed as Shashtri in August 1973 through Public Service Commission. He is presently posted in Government Sanskrit College, Kairtoo, w.e.f. October 1999 against the post of Lecturer (Economics). 3. His case is that the respondent department has drawn up a tentative seniority list of Shashtries having Acharya qualification as on 31.7.1996 (Annexure-A-2) and no final seniority list has been drawn up till date. The relative position of the applicant viz-a-viz the junior Shashtries posted in Sanskrit College, is as given in the above seniority list is as under:- Sr. No. Name Seniority No. 1. Applicant 31 2. Shri Jiwan Lal Shashtri 32 3. Shri Mast Ram Shashtri 46 4. Shri Prem Lal Shashtri 47 5. Shri Leela Dhar Shashtri 78 6. Smt. Suman Dolma, Shashtri 111 7. Shri Chuni Lal, Shastri Nil 8. Shri Chattar Singh, Shashtri 96 9. No. Name Seniority No. 1. Applicant 31 2. Shri Jiwan Lal Shashtri 32 3. Shri Mast Ram Shashtri 46 4. Shri Prem Lal Shashtri 47 5. Shri Leela Dhar Shashtri 78 6. Smt. Suman Dolma, Shashtri 111 7. Shri Chuni Lal, Shastri Nil 8. Shri Chattar Singh, Shashtri 96 9. Shri Ram Dutt, Shashtri 118 10. Shri Parveen Kumar, Shastri 137 11. Shri Keshva Nand, Shashtri 147 12. Shri Budhi Ram, Shashtri Nil 13. Shri Sant Ram Gaud, Shastri Nil 4. It is evident from the above relative positions of the Shashtri that they are junior to the applicant. Despite this they have been posted in Sanskrit; Colleges so as to give them benefit of being eligible for promotion/Scale to the posts of Pandits and Head Pandits. The applicant had been requested the respondent department to post him in Sanskrit College in accordance with his seniority. In this ibid the applicant has represented on 24.12.1993 (Annexure-A-3) on 10.4.1995 (Annexure-A-4) and the applicant has categorically prayed that the applicant b« also given an opportunity to serve in Sanskrit College Kairtoo so as to make him eligible to Be promoted as Pandit and Head Pandit. But on every occasion, the request of the applicant has been ignored and the Shashtries junior to the applicant has been posted in Sanskrit College kairtoo to give them the benefits of being eligible for further promotions to the post of Pandit/Head Pandit in the scale of College cadre and grant them financial benefits. The post of Teachers always remained vacant in Shashtri College, Kairtoo. Despite this the applicant was not afforded an opportunity of being posted in Sanskrit Pathashala (Now College) Kairtoo. This fact was even brought to the notice of the Directorate by the Principal as long back as on 22.12.1998 (Annexure-A-5). The respondent department has never constituted the Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the R&P Rules (Annexure-A-6) for promotion granting the scale/grade of Pandits / Head Pandits till date after 30.3.1994 (Annexure-A-7). The respondent department has transferred the persons junior to the applicant to the Sanskrit Pathashala/Colleges and granted them scale. These junior teachers are Jiwan Lal and Leela Nand (Annexure-A-10). The respondent department has transferred the persons junior to the applicant to the Sanskrit Pathashala/Colleges and granted them scale. These junior teachers are Jiwan Lal and Leela Nand (Annexure-A-10). Thus, the respondent department has not been following any procedure in posting the Sahitya Acharya qualified Shashtri in Sanskrit College which has caused anomalous situation in as much as the junior Shashtries working in the Sanskrit College have been lying claim for grant of scale/grade of Pandits, which is dehors the R& P Rules. 5. The respondent department has even issued instruction in May 1981 (Annexure-A-11) wherein it has been clearly stated that the Shashtries having Acharaya qualification working in the district should be posted in Sanskrit Pathashala. However, the respondent department has not been following any norms of seniority while posting the Shashtri with the qualification of Acharya to these Pathashala College. 6. In reply filed by respondent department the claim of the applicant has been contested on the grounds that the applicant was deputed in Sanskrit College, Kairtoo on his request against the post of Lecturer (Economics Annexure-RA). The alleged seniority list is only relevant for the purpose of promotion to the post of Pandit. Since the applicant has been deputed against "the post of Lecturer (Economics) to which he is not qualified, the applicant is not having the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Lecturer (Economics}. The applicant has been deputed on Sanskrit College, kairtoo on medical ground as per his request, it does not mean that he is holding the substantive post of Shashtri in the Sanskrit College. Hence, his name could not be included in the list. It is further stated that the promotion to the post of Pandit is made from amongst Shashtri cadre irrespective of the facts whether he is posted in Sanskrit College or School. 7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant stating therein that ever since his posting in Sanskrit College Kairtoo, the applicant has been discharging the duties of teaching subject and Pandit/Head Pandit as is evident from the time tables for the year, 2000 (Annexure-A-12) 2001 (Annexure-A-13), 2002 (Annexure-A-14) and 2003 (Annexure-A-15) and is still continuing to discharge his duties as such. The applicant is fully competent and eligible to discharge the duties as Pandit/Head Pandit. The applicant has been applying since the year, 1979 for being appointed in Shashtri College on the basis of his seniority. The applicant is fully competent and eligible to discharge the duties as Pandit/Head Pandit. The applicant has been applying since the year, 1979 for being appointed in Shashtri College on the basis of his seniority. The applicant was appointed only on 14.10.1999 in Govt Sanskrit College Kairtoo and that too against the post of Lecture (Economics), even though, as is evident from the above Annexures the applicant has been made to discharge duties as a Pandit/ Head Pandit throughout. All other similar situated persons have been given UGC Scale and the applicant alone has been discriminated and not paid the UGC Scale till date. It is further submitted that on 2.3.2000 a post of Pandit became vacant in Govt College Kairtoo and the applicant immediately made a request to adjust the applicant against the said post. The respondent department instead of considering his claim, adjusted one Shri Paras Ram against the said post. The post of Lecturer (Literature) remained vacant in the said college for quite long time and was being manned by Pracharya Vyakaran. 8. We have heard the learned counsel representing their respective parties and peruse the pleadings and record of the case carefully. 9. The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the pronouncement of this Tribunal in OA No. 944/1996 titled as Rama Nand vs. State, decided on March, 1, 2002. This Tribunal has decided similar issue in another case i.e. TA No. 106/87 decided on 3.8.1993, wherein it was held that the Sanskrit Institutions are equivalent to Govt. Colleges and this fact was not disputed by the Government in CWP No. 455/1976, it was further observed that Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya are College like other colleges of the State and the Teacher in these Colleges are Lecturer in other Colleges and the Lecturer be given the same pay scale and the status as to other Lecturer in other Colleges of the State. 10. Admittedly, respondent department in its reply to para 6 (V) has categorically held that the promotions to the post of Pandit is made from amongst Shashtri cadre irrespective of the fact whether he is posted in Sanskrit College or School. 10. Admittedly, respondent department in its reply to para 6 (V) has categorically held that the promotions to the post of Pandit is made from amongst Shashtri cadre irrespective of the fact whether he is posted in Sanskrit College or School. Despite such categorical admission by the respondent department, the respondent department has ignored the rightful claim of the applicant, as admittedly, he is senior to many person as noted above and all these person have been considered prior to him Annexure A-5 makes it amply evidence that the post of Sahitya Acharaya was lying vacant since March 1993 in Sanskrit College Kairtoo. The applicant has brought sufficient evidence by way of time table wherein it has been clearly indicated that despite being posted against the post of Lecturer (Economics), for which he was not eligible as per the statement of respondent department, he was discharging the duty of Pandit by teaching the relevant subjects. Record would further reveal that the respondent department has extended the benefit of the post almost to all other similar situated persons either in pursuance to the order of this Tribunal or on its own or by taking cue from the judgment of this Tribunal. In this manner, the applicant only has been discriminated. 11. Sanskrit College Lecturer has been divided in two categories i.e. Pandit and Oriental Teacher and both have the same and similar functions and have the similar qualifications. The applicant is being treated as Shashtri/Oriental Teacher though he is discharging the duties of akin to Pandit. 12. The learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed that the main reposition raised in the present cased is fully covered by the judgment in OA No.1111/94 titled as Hem Prabba vs. State of H.P. but he has tried to distinguish the said judgment on the plea that the appointment of the applicant Hem Prabba in that case had been approved by the H.P. University whereas in the present case, no such approval has been given to the present applicant. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in TA No. 192/2002 titled as Chattar Singh Vs. 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 entitled the applicant for any benefit. 13. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the judgment delivered by this Tribunal in TA No. 192/2002 titled as Chattar Singh Vs. 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 entitled the applicant for any benefit. It is not disputed that even the judgment in case of Chattar Singh (supra) has been implemented by the State. In this view of the matter, the 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 the approval of the University is merely formality. 14. It may be pointed at this stage that in case of one Shri Mahidhar Sharma, who retired as a TGT from Sanskrit College, the State created a tenure post of Pandity temporarily in UGC pay scale for Govt. 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 Mahidhar Sharma. Averments to this effect are contained in para 6.34 of the Original Application and a mention therein has been made to the notification dated 24.8.1995. (Annexure-A-8) with the Original Application, whereby the benefit of pay scale of Pandit was granted to Shri Mahidhar Sharma. These averments have not been controverted in the original application filed earlier by the other similarly situated incumbents. 15. In view of the above said factual and legal background the present Original Application is allowed in terms of the decisions in OA No. 1111/1994 with the directions to treat the applicant as Pandit w.e.f. the date he joined Sanskrit College and he will be entitled to the pay scale as applicable to the other similar situated persons. However, the applicant shall be entitled to the arrears from the three years prior to filing the present application i.e. date of filing is 28.2.2001 with differences of arrear of pay with all consequential benefits l[ke that granted to Shri Mahidhar Sharma, T.G.T. 16. In the light of above the present original application stands disposed of with no order as to costs.