Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 653 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-27

K.KANNAN

body2010
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing the proceedings of the Director Public instructions (Colleges) and the subsequent order issued by the 3rd respondent-the Principal Sikh National College, observing that the services of the petitioner as a Librarian in the College would be reckoned only from 15.10.1982 which, according to the 2nd respondent, was the date when the petitioner was regularized. These orders are impugned in the writ petition by the petitioner on a plea that she had been appointed as a Librarian in Guru Nanak Khalsa college in the scale of 300-600 on 05.09.1975 (Annexure P-1) and appointment was also approved by the University by its letter dated 15.12.1975 (Annexure P-2 ). The petitioner was also confirmed in that post as a Librarian by order dated 05.09.1976 issued by the guru Nanak Khalsa College (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioner was issued with an office order of the 3rd respondent-Sikh National College, stating that she had been appointed as a Librarian against a leave vacancy on deputation and her pay was fixed on the basis of the last drawn salary at the Khalsa College. The issue relating to pay protection was provisional and the office order stated that the permission of the DPI (Colleges) would have to be obtained. The director of Public Instructions issued a memo No.115-11/34-80-Grant 1 (5), dated 11.03.1981 approving the appointment of a Librarian against the leave vacancy and the deputation was also approved. The 3rd respondent has made pointed reference to the order dated 12.03.1981 in a communication sent to the director that the petitioner had been working previously in Guru Nanak College on regular basis and that she was taken in service by the 3rd respondent-College w. e. f.20.11.1980 and transfer and appointment on deputation had also been approved by the communication referred to above. 2. The contention of the petitioner therefore is that when the petitioner had a continuous service without any form of break and when she had been appointed by the 3rd respondent on 14.11.1980 awaiting further permission from the DPI, and when such permission was also granted on 12.03.1981, the 2nd respondent could have no basis for reckoning the service from 15.10.1982. The contention of the petitioner therefore is that when the petitioner had a continuous service without any form of break and when she had been appointed by the 3rd respondent on 14.11.1980 awaiting further permission from the DPI, and when such permission was also granted on 12.03.1981, the 2nd respondent could have no basis for reckoning the service from 15.10.1982. The scale of pay would have to be worked only on the basis of her regular appointment at the Guru Nanak Khalsa College and the actual pay that she drew at the time when she joined the 3rd respondent-College. 3. In response to the petitioners contention, the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner had actually resigned the service at the Guru Nanak College against the post vacated as a result of resignation of an incumbent in the Sikh national College on 15.10.1982. The scale had to be therefore worked only from the date of the so-called appointment on 15.10.1982. The same reference was also made elsewhere in the statement where it was contended that the petitioners pay was fixed w. e. f.15.10.1982 on the basis of her regular appointment in the existing institution after resigning from the previous college on 14.10.1982. 4. It has to be pointed out that there is no record placed along with the written statement of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had resigned only on 14.10.1982 from Guru Nanak College and she had taken appointment on 15.10.1982 at the 3rd respondent College. It makes meaningless the communications that had already come about when even as per the letter dated 12.03.1981, the 2nd respondent has confirmed the fact of the petitioner having been approved to be appointed on deputation with the 3rd respondent College w. e. f.14.11.1980. Even if it were to be assumed for a moment that there was a letter of resignation with the Guru Nanak College in the year, 1982 and that she had been appointed at the 3rd respondent College only on 15.10.1982, it must only be reckoned that the assumption of charge as a deputationist in the 3rd respondent College in the year 1980 stood confirmed subsequently on 15.10.1982. The continuity of service that the petitioner enjoyed from her initial appointment with Guru Nanak college in the year 1975 and a transfer that has come subsequently could not be lost by the only fact that the 2nd respondent assumed the appointment at the 3rd respondent College to be effective only from the year 1982. The contentions of the 2nd respondent which is a reproduction of what is contained in the impugned notice has gone on a wrong assumption that the services of the petitioner could be counted only from 15.10.1982 when there are unimpeachable evidence to show that the petitioner had been appointed to a sanctioned post in an aided College from 5th September, 1975 and which appointment had also been approved by the 2nd respondent. The impugned proceedings counting her service as effective from 15.10.1982 and the demand of the 3rd respondent for recovery of the benefits of pay protection given to her for the salary drawn by her at the previous College are clearly untenable and they are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has since retired on 31st May, 2004 and it has been referred to in C. M. No.19049 of 2009 and that till she was retired, she was only given the salary as per the scale drawn on an assumption that her entry into service was only from 15.10.1982. The respondent shall re-work the scale of pay by taking the initial appointment made on 05.09.1975 and the arrears shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The retiral benefits shall also be computed on the basis of such revised calculation and that shall also be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. The amount determined on such calculation shall bear interest at 6% from the respective dates when the amounts fell due and became payable to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be however no directions as to costs.