Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Pal vs Ambala College Of Engineering And ... on 12 March, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:12.03.2012
Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Ram Pal, Lab Attendant, Ambala
College of Engineering and Applied Research, Devsthali (near
Mithapur), Ambala-Jagadhari Highway, PO Sambhalkha,District
Ambala (Haryana), and others.
...Petitioners
versus
Ambala College of Engineering and Applied Research,
Devsthali (near Mithapur), Ambala -Jagadhari Highway, PO
Sambhalkha,District Ambala (Haryana) through its Director, and
others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kohal
Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, for respondents 3 and 4.
Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate, for respondent
No.5.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petition is at the instance of non-teaching staff in the first respondent-College that is run by the second respondent- Trust. They all have been appointed on contract basis at fixed Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M) -2- salaries. The petitioners' grievance, however, is that notwithstanding such contracts, their rights are protected by law, namely, the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act of 1979. The Trust-Management that runs the College is liable to pay the salaries as per the relevant rules that have been framed under the Act, namely, the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Rules of 1993. Rule 10 of the said Rules reads that the scales of pay and allowances of the employees shall be specified by the Government from time to time. The grievance of the petitioners is that the salary is being paid only for less than the scales admissible to the employees of affiliated Colleges.
2. The issue of the extent of liability of a private management which receives no State aid has been dealt with by this Court in CWP Nos.15325 and 15339 of 2001. The matter was dealt with at the instance of some employees against an affiliated College recognized by the Kurukshetra University dealing with the liability of a Management for the salary as per the Rules. It was held as follows:-
" Once a college falls in the definition of 'affiliated college' obviously, the provisions of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 are attracted and are fully applicable. Section 4 of the Haryana Act deals with the method of recruitment and conditions of service while Section 5 provides for the code of conduct Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the employees. The State Government is empowered under Section 16 of the Act to frame rules. Exercising its powers, the State Government, thus, enacted Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 8 of the said Rules provide for the manner and method and in fact makes it mandatory that every person appointed to any post in service shall remain on probation for a period of two years and then also specifies the manner and method of termination, confirmation and extension of the period. In other words, the rule specifically deals with the period of probation and in absence of any provision to the contrary under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, or even the rules/guidelines framed thereunder, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be controlled and governed by the Haryana Act and the Rules framed thereunder."
This judgment lays down that all the employees in service of the Colleges affiliated under the University shall be paid the salaries as specified under the State Act and the Rules.
3. It appears that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by means of a writ petition in CWP No.4148 of 2008 and had Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M) -4- it withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal against the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not paying the scales payable in Government Colleges and Colleges where grant-in-aid was being received. This Court had granted permission to the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal by its order dated 20.05.2009. The Tribunal has disposed off the appeal when it was filed, holding that there was no order against which it could pass a final order and without any representation to the Management, it shall not be possible to pass an order.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed reply and so too, the State. The State has no qualms about stating that the liability shall be on the respondents 1 and 2 and it should be liable to pay the scales of pay as admissible under the relevant statutory rules. The counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 would, however, contend that there has been no disposal of the case by the Tribunal on merits and it could be directed to be disposed off after remand on merits. It is another way of saying that the respondents 1 and 2 were not prepared to join issues but would only nibble at the periphery. The controversy before this Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to the scales of pay as admissible to State Colleges or State aided Colleges. I have extracted the judgment of this Court that has held that they are entitled to such scales. It will be no answer to the petitioners' contention for grant of scales to plead that under a contract of employment they have been given a consolidated sum Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M) -5- and that shall be the salary which would be payable. I would allow for a remand to take place if there was a point for an adjudication on a fact. On the other hand, if the issue were to be only rested on the extent of entitlement of the petitioners, it is no longer res intergra. On the other hand, it has been concluded already by the judgment of this Court. I would apply the law as extracted above and hold that the petitioners are entitled to the scales of pay as admissible for the Government aided Colleges or Government Colleges. The Tribunal's order itself does not require to be quashed, for, it does not adjudicate anything. I have granted the relief as what is exigent under the circumstances that the salary shall be worked out for the period during which the petitioners have worked at the Government approved scales within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. It is also contended by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioners' appointment itself was not regular and they were all appointed illegally. I find this argument of the counsel to be rather strange and irresponsible. An appointment by a College affiliated to a University cannot plead its own wrong to deny what is otherwise justified at the instance of the persons, who have been offering the services to the respondents. I reject the contention that the petitioners would lose the right by the self-deprecating stand that the appointment of the petitioners is illegal. Having regard to the deliberate false and deprecatory stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 Civil Writ Petition No.20611 of 2010 (O&M) -6- denying even the status of the petitioners as illegal appointees, the writ petition is allowed with cost assessed at Rs.25,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 12.03.2012 sanjeev