Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1734 (PNJ)

Amrit Dhiman v. State Of Punjab

2008-10-16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by Mrs. Amrit Dhiman praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the action of respondents in not releasing the retiral benefits such as gratuity, part payment of provident fund, contributory provident fund etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and unconstitutional. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus giving directions to the respondents to release all the retiral benefits mentioned above, forthwith. 2. The facts which can be gathered from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Permanent Lecturer at Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala, on 15.7.1970. She rendered services for about 27 years and attained the age of superannuation on 4.7.1997. It is pleaded that Hindu Kanya College, respondent No. 3, is a Punjab Government Aided Institution, receiving 95% grant-in-aid and hence is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Petitioner has averred that her service record suffers from no blemish as she worked according to the satisfaction of the employer and nothing adverse was communicated to her. She further stated that she submitted a Calculation Sheet of Death-cum-Retiral Gratuity and revised pension to the office of the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, vide registered post on 29.8.2000. This has been attached as Annexure P4. Petitioner states that vide Annexure P5, College Authorities recommended withdrawal of provident fund amount to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalandhar, who vide Annexure P6, responded that the amount of provident fund accumulated is being refunded. Since the amount was not being paid to the petitioner, she approached the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalandhar, vide Annexure P7, wherein it was recorded that the College Authorities have stated that the amount has been refunded to the Director, Public Instructions (Schools) but the same should have been refunded to the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges). It is stated that thereafter vide different pay orders amount of Rs. 64,898 on account of employee and employer share from 1.1.1993 to 4.7.1997 were paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The petitioner claimed that the interest should have been 12% per annum. It is stated that thereafter vide different pay orders amount of Rs. 64,898 on account of employee and employer share from 1.1.1993 to 4.7.1997 were paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The petitioner claimed that the interest should have been 12% per annum. It has been further pleaded in the writ petition that the contributory provident fund for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1992 is lying in the office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalandhar, has not been refunded. A further grievance has been made that amount of the gratuity which was sanctioned by the Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, has not been paid. Thus, the petitioner states that she should be paid gratuity, part payment of the provident fund, interest at the rate of 12% instead of 5% on the payment released as provident fund, contributory provident fund be paid along with interest for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1992 and interest at the rate of 18% be paid on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. Notice of motion was issued by this Court. 3. Respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. Provident Fund Commissioner and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner have stated that amount of contributory provident fund from 1.12.1989 to 31.12.1992 amounting to Rs. 1,09,278/- along with interest upto 31,5.2002 was transferred to EPF Trust, Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala, vide cheque No. 556607 dated 30.5.2002. 4. No written statement has been filed by State of Punjab, respondent No. 1, Director, Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, respondent No. 2 and Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala, through its Principal, respondent No. 3. 5. The matter of private college employee regarding 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. 5. The matter of private college employee regarding 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. and other arrears was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.C. Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 3583 of 2007 decided on 17.12.2007and it was held as under :- "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 vs. 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 vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1996(2) PLR 113, Hindu College Governing Council and another vs. Shri N.D. Malhotra and another, 1993(1) RSJ 757and Surjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 2005(1) RSJ 697. Reference was also made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association vs. Administrative Officer, JT 2004(2) SC 27 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 vs. State of Punjab 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 Sadnu Singh, (supra), it was directed that the State Government should release the grant. (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 Sadnu 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. 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". 6 Accordingly, it is directed that respondent No. 3 Management of the College irrespective of the aid from the State, pay the amount of gratuity within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and they shall also be liable to pay 9% interest on the delayed payment. Since provident fund and contributory provident fund have already been paid, no further directions are called for. Any other retiral benefit due shall be paid to the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in K.C. Sharmas case (supra). The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.