Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Laxminarayana vs The Secretary, A.P. Residential ... on 25 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALT404
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The petitioner complaining that the respondent authorities have not paid any pensionary and other fringe benefits on attaining the age of superannuation has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse all the outstanding dues to the petitioner with interest the rate of 25% per annum from the respective dates and with exemplary costs.
2. In response to the Rule Nisi, the respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that till date due to lack of funds they could not pay the outstanding dues to the petitioner and that the same would be paid soon after receipt of budget sanction for the year 1996-97. The counter affidavit was sworn to by the 1st respondent on 22.8.1996. At the time of hearing none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the respondents though the respondents are represented by a counsel. Admittedly, on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner had to be paid the following pension and other fringe benefits.
1. Regular monthly pension w.e.f. 1.7.1994Rs. 2,600/-
2. D.C.R.G.Rs. 65,000/-
3. Commutation pension valueRs. 1,08,701/-
3. The petitioner is entitled to the above pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the proceedings of the Director of Public Libraries, dated 26.6.1995. Since no good ground is stated by the respondents to withhold the payment of the pension and other benefits, there is absolutely no justification for the respondents not to pay the pension and other benefits though the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation as far back as on 30.6.1994.
4. In that view of the matter and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA vs. M.PADMANABHAN NAIR & OTHERS ( 1 ) & O.P. GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ( 2 ), we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to pay all the outstanding pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith with 12% interest accrued thereon till the date of payment. The petitioner is also entitled to the cost of this writ petition quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) payable by the respondents within a period of one month from today. No costs.
ORDER
5. Questioning the proceedings of the 3rd respondent i.e., the Principal, A.P. Silver Jubilee Residential Degree College Hostel, Kurnool in RC.No.09/A/APHL/96, dated 31-10-1996, wherein the Principal held that the petitioner is the employee of the 1st respondent Society i.e., A.P. Residential Educational Institution Society, Hyderabad and the 1st respondent alone has to pay the salary of the petitioner in the time scale of pay of Store Keeper, the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Manager-Store Keeper in the hostel attached to the College since 18-10-1984, filed the writ petition.
6. The petitioner was roaming around the Courts for almost a decade seeking regularisation of his service as Assistant Manager-Store Keeper and for payment of time scale of pay attached to the said post.
7. The factual background of this case is that the Government established Silver Jubilee Residential Degree College to mark the occasion of Silver Jubilee year of Indian independence, as a Residential Decree College. The aim was to make it a model college with high standards and eventually to turn it into an autonomous college. The College was a State wide residential institution and the students will be selected for admission on the basis of a State wide selection through an entrance examination and the students who were admitted to the College have to be provided with free boarding and lodging. Thereafter, as the Government did not sanction required staff to maintain the Hostel, the Hostel Committee headed by the Principal was appointing the staff on daily wages for running the mess/canteen, In that process, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager by the Principal on the basis of a resolution adopted by the Hostel Advisory Committee. Several others were also appointed as Cooks, Cleaners, Assistants etc. All these employees were being paid only daily wages. While some were appointed on consolidated wages, some others were appointed on daily wages. It is also not in dispute that the College was directly under the control of the Government. Every year necessary budget allotment is being made to run the College by the department. As the Government is master in making experiments with the human beings, perhaps at the novel idea of some people in the office, the College was made an ordinary College for the academic year 1986-87 i.e., without hostel facility. But, within three months thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 1703, Education (CE) Department, dated 25-10-1986 wherein the Government decided to continue the College as a Residential College and handed over the same to the 1st respondent-Society, perhaps without transferring the budgetary allotment to the Society. At this stage, there seemed to be some public resentment on the transfer of the College to the Society. With the result, the College was continued to be under the management of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, but somehow the Society has taken management of the Hostel for the academic year 1988-89. From the material available on record, the Government having handed over the Hostel to the Society was not releasing the required funds. As per the version of the Government in its counter filed in the case, which was sworn on 21-7-1988 that an amount of Rs.70 lakhs is due from the Government to the Society towards the maintenance of the Hostel. It is nothing but natural that the Society started bringing pressures for restoration of the College with the Hostel to the Government. In these circumstances, the Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 2669, Education, CE-1/ Department, dated 29-11-1995 restoring the College to the control of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Though a reference was made to this G.O in the counter, the Government did not make the said G.O available to this Court to know the contents of the G.O. Be that as it may, from the counter filed by the respondents in this case, an anomalous situation has come into existence i.e., while the College was being maintained with the Government funds, the Society was maintaining the Hostel with its own funds and sending the bills for reimbursement but there was no response from the Government. While such a situation is prevailing with regard to running of the College and the Hostel, the Cooks and other staff working in the hostel filed two writ petitions against the Society seeking regularisation of their services and the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 27624 of 1996 and W.P.No. 27625 of 1996 directed the Society to regularise the services of those petitioners and also to extend the time scales of pay by its order dated 1-9-1997. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Society carried the matter in appeals W.A. No. 151 of 1998 and 152 of 1998 contending that the Society has nothing to do with the Hostel and it is under the control and charge of the Government. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17-11-1998 recorded a categorical finding that the Hostel is under the management of the Principal and the Department of Education in the following words:
"In any event, since the supplementary affidavit records that the institution, inclusive of the hostel, is now a Government organisation and since there is no appeal by the Government, question of the Secretary, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society maintaining an appeal does not and cannot arise. The appeals, as framed, are not maintainable and the same, therefore, fail and are dismissed. Time to comply with the order of the learned single Judge is extended by a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order."
8. In fact, while recording the said finding, this Court has taken note of the presence of the Government as a party respondent before the learned single Judge and it has not chosen to file any appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The Society carried the matter to the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P No. 6240 of 1999 and S.L.P.No.6241 of 1999 as this Court gave the above direction to both the Society as well as the Government. The two S.L.Ps were disposed of by an order dated 1-11-1999 remanding the matter back to this Court on the ground that the Division Bench has not considered the contention of the Society that they are not in a position to regularise the services of the employees as the Hostel was taken over by the Government. Now, I understand that the Writ Appeals stand un-disposed of by this Court till now.
9. After the remand, at the request of the counsel for the employees W.A.M.P. 322 of 1998 was taken up for hearing and the Society started contending that the Hostel employees are being paid with the fee collected from the students for running the hostel, which is obviously incorrect for the reason that from the advertisement given by the Society calling for the applications from the students, who intend to join this College for the academic year 2000-2001, it is specifically stated that the admitted candidates will be provided free boarding and lodging in the hostel in the college premises itself. This fact is further evident from the U.O note No.45991/653/A2/EBS-VII/97, dated 5-2-1998 of Finance and Planning (S.W-EBS.VII) Department providing revised estimate for 1997-98 and Budget estimate for 1998-99 for the Government Colleges.
Major Head: - 2002-General Education.
Sub Major Head: - 03-University and Higher Education.
Minor Head: - 103 Govt. Colleges and Institutes.
Sub Head: - (07) Govt. Degree Colleges for Men.
After giving the estimated figures in the Remarks, it is stated hereunder:
"The amounts provided under B.E.98-99 includes the provisions made for Silver Jubilee Govt. Degree College Hostel under the control of C.C.E Rs. 1.08 lakhs under daily wages, one thousand for phone charges, Rs. 1.00 lakh for water charges. Rs. 1.26 lakhs towards electricity charges of Hostel and Rs. 9.45 lakhs towards diet charges of students have been provided.
This very statement clinchingly proves that the students of this College are being provided with free boarding and lodging and the respondents are speaking falsehood to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees working on daily wages and budgetary provision is made for that purpose."
10. Be that as it may, while passing orders, the Division Bench observed to appoint an appropriate authority to collect the money from the students towards the fee for running the hostel and ensure payment of salary to the cooks from the said money till further orders. At the same time, their Lordships recorded a finding that it is well known that a hostel run by an educational institution is part and parcel of that educational institution. The state, which claims to be its duty to spread education, cannot bifurcate the educational institution and the hostel.
11. The position with regard to the employees working in the hostel attached to the educational institution was made clear by the Supreme Court in a recent judgement and that will be dealt with while dealing with the merits of the case on hand.
12. Coming to the case of petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 5156 of 1993 seeking regularisation of his service but the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge by an order dated 4-4-1996 on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable against a Society. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing W.A.No. 1010 of 1996. This Court while disposing of the Writ Appeal by order dated 2-2-1996, having taken notice of some of the orders passed by the Government creating confusion whether the management of the hostel is vested with the Government or still it is continued with the Society, passed an order that if the hostel is under the management of the Society, the Society must decide to pay the Writ Appellant such scale of pay on par with the scale of an Assistant Manager-Store Keeper of a Government Hostel. If he is a government employee, it is obvious that he is entitled to such benefits. Because of prevailing confusion, the Principal was directed to decide the following two aspects.
1. Whether the Society will pay the salary and if so, what shall be the salary payable to the writ petitioner-appellant; and
2. Whether the Government shall pay the salary and in case the Government has to pay, what shall be the salary.
13. Their Lordships further made it clear that any decision taken in this behalf shall be applicable from the date of taking over of the College by the Government. Pursuant to the said judgement, the present impugned order dated 31-10-1996 was passed by the Principal stating that the Hostel was transferred to 1st respondent-Society and the Society alone has to pay the salary, and at the same time he recommended to the Society for payment of time scale of pay to the petitioner as they happened to be the pay masters. Questioning this order, the present writ petition is filed.
14. While admitting the writ petition, I passed the following order in W.P.M.P.No. 16263 of 1997 dated 3-3-1998:
"Whether the order passed by the Principal is valid in law or not will be decided at the time of final hearing. During the pendency of the writ petition whoever is paying the salary of the petitioner, they shall pay the salary in the time scale of pay of Rs. 1745-40-1825/-, the scale of pay fixed for the store keeper. Any deviation will be viewed seriously."
15. But, this order was also not complied with by the respondents. Hence the petitioner filed C.C.No. 415 of 1998 in June, 1998. In the meantime the Society filed vacate stay petition W.V.M.P.No. 1466 of 1998. I have taken up the hearing of the C.C and W.V.M.P along with the writ petition itself.
16. In the counters filed by the respondents, the following contentions were raised:
1. The hostel was run by the students themselves with Hostel Advisory Committee presided over by the Principal.
2. The appointment was made by the Principal in the capacity of Chairman, Hostel Advisory Committee on behalf of the students. Hence the appointment was a purely a private affair.
3. The Government cannot be burdened with the financial liability.
4. So far as hostel is concerned, right from its inception it remained as a private arrangement of the students.
5. Though this Court in W.A.No. 1010 of 1996 directed that the case of the petitioner has to be considered for regular appointment on priority basis, if the Government takes over the hostel and till this date the Government have not taken any decision to take over the hostel or its management.
17. At the same time, the Government in its counter categorically admitted that though the orders were issued transferring the management of the College to the Society, the College was not actually handed over to the Society because no grant-in-aid was given by the Government to the Society for its management. As the Hostel is being maintained by the students but not by the College, the Society has taken over the Hostel from 1998-99 to avoid hardship to the students and incurred mess expenditure of Rs. 4, 66, 440/- from its own funds for maintenance of the Hostel. If there is any truth in this contention of the respondents that the Hostel is being maintained by the students themselves, the question of Society incurring such a huge expenditure and claiming reimbursement from the Government does not arise. Likewise the counter is conveniently silent with regard to G.O.Rt.No.2669, dated 29-11-1995 whereunder the earlier orders of the Government transferring the College to the Society was rescinded and again brought under the control of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. From this, it is evident that the College was under the management and control of the Education Department and from the budget allotment i.e., revised estimate for 1997-98 and budget estimate for 1998-99 extracted supra, it is crystal clear that the Hostel is being managed by the Government but not the students as sought to be contended now.
18. All the above factors lead to an irresistible conclusion that the stand taken by the respondents, that the Hostel is being maintained by the students themselves is only an afterthought, intended to mislead the Court and to avoid payment of living wages to the employees working in the Hostel.
19. I have already adverted to the observation made by this Court in W.A.M.P.No. 322 of 1998 in W.A.No. 151 of 1998 that any hostel run by Educational institution forms part and parcel of the educational institution and it cannot be bifurcated. Be that as it may, such an obnoxious contention taken by Panth University with regard to its hostel employees was repelled by the Supreme Court in G.B.Panth University of Agriculture & Technology v. State of U.P.(1) wherein their Lordships held as follows:
" The detailed analysis as above has been introduced in this judgement so as to exhibit the control of the University in the matter of running of the Cafeteria. As noticed above, a residential University having a canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare service to the students. It is a requirement of the Regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory sanction and force-the issue thus comes up for consideration as to whether tit is a mere ancillary benefit conferred on to the inmates of the hostel or an essential requirement. The Regulations pertaining to the hostel accommodation and the supplies of food do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat it as an essential requirement so far as the inmates of the hostel are concerned. The involvement of the Vice-Chancellor, the Warden, and the Food Managers as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the labour force asking for a parity in their scale of pay. Regularisastion will undoubtedly bring forth a parity with the other employees of the University. The requirement of the number of employees also cannot be brushed aside. More than 175 employees are required for the purpose of providing food to the inmates of the hostels-there are altogether 14 hostels and the inmates have to depend on to the cafeteria for their food service since nobody else can, as a matter of fact, avoid the needs of the Cafeteria- it is a requirement of the Regulation"
20. Their Lordships further held as follows:
"Admittedly, Cafeteria employees need succour for livelihood-would they continue to remain half fed and half clad as long as they live- is this the society that we feel proud of. Is this the guarantee provided by the founding fathers of our Constitution or is this the concept of socialism which they conceived? None of the answers can possible be in the affirmative. The situation is rather awesome and deplorable-the University by compulsion directs students to be residents of hostel with a definite ban on having food from outside agencies excepting under special circumstances and the provider of food, namely the staff of the Cafeteria ought not to be treated as an employee of the University- whose employees they if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent on our part to ask the same- is it the consumer of food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the employer? These are the questions which remain unanswered. The society shall have to thrive. The society shall have to prosper and this prosperity can only come in the event of there being a wider vision for total social good and benefit. It is not bestowing any favour to anybody but it is a mandatory obligation to see that the society thrives. The deprivation of the weaker section we had for long but time has now come to cry halt and it is for the law courts to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to a seeker of a just cause and just grievance. Economic justice is not a mere legal jargon but in the new millenium, it is the obligation for all to confer this economic justice to a seeker. Society is to remain, social justice is the order and economic justice is the rule of the day. Narrow pedantic approach to statutory documents no longer survives. The principle of corporate jurisprudence is now being imbibed on to industrial jurisprudence and there is a long catena of cases in regard thereto- the law thus is not in a state of fluidity since the situation is more or less settled. As regards interpretation widest possible amplitude shall have to be offered in the matter of interpretation of statutory documents under industrial jurisprudence. The draconian concept is no longer available. Justice-social and economic, as noticed above ought to be made available with utmost expedition, so that the socialist pattern of the society as dreamt of by the founding fathers can thrive and have its foundation so that the future generation do not live in the dark and cry for social and economic justice."
21. The other contention that there is no budget allocation and if a direction is given to the University to regularise the services of the petitioners, there will be severe financial implications was also rejected by the Supreme Court by holding that the financial implications have no relevance while rending socio-economic justice to the weaker sections. Taking the above view, the Supreme Court held as under:
" In a faint attempt Mr. Trivedi wanted to introduce a pragmatic approach to the problem and contended that the law courts should consider the matter from different angles applying practical experience and factual contexts before arriving at the solution. It has been contended that the financial implications would be rather much too heavy on the University to be borne by it and unless State assistance is made available, it would a well neigh impossibility to meet the burden. We are however, unable to record our concurrence thereto. Pragmatism does not necessarily be deprivation of the legitimate claims of the weaker sections of the society. The submission, if we may say with respect, is totally misplaced and does not warrant any further discussion therein."
22. Having rejected both the contentions that there is no relationship of Master and Servant between the employees working in the Cafeteria and the University and that there will be severe financial implications if the services of the temporary employees are directed to be regularised by the university, the Apex Court directed regularisation of the services of as many as 175 employees working in the Cafeteria maintained by the University.
23. From the facts of the above case, it is seen that atleast the students were paying the mess bill whereas in the case on hand the Government is committed to provide free boarding and lodging to the students admitted based on state wide selections. Hence, it is too late in the day to contend that the wages of the employees working in the hostel canteens are being paid from out of the amounts collected from the students and there is no relationship of Master and Servant between the parties and as such it is not bound to pay the time scales of pay attached to the posts in which they are working. From this it is evident that the question of running the Hostel by the students, who are consumers of food, does not arise, as the students cannot become the employers.
24. Admittedly, the College was established in 1972 as a Residential College, it is only in the year 1988-89 the Society stepped into the shoes of the Government and managed the affairs of the Hostel for some time. At the same time, the Court should not forget the fact that the Society is always requesting the Government to reimburse the amounts spent by it. If the hostel is being maintained by the students and they are incurring the expenditure, the question of neither the Society incurring expenditure nor seeking for reimbursement by the Government does not arise. The Governmental authorities started raising this type of obnoxious contentions in the beginning of the new millenium. It is not known whether the country is proceeding in forward direction or in the reverse direction.
25. It is also interesting to note that the Principal of the College was addressing letters since 1994 seeking sanction of the posts for maintaining the hostel. The first letter being Lr.No.146/A2-2/92-94 dated 15-4-1994. While seeking orders for creation of posts, the Principal stated as follows:
"In view of the above, I request you kindly to issue necessary orders for complete handing over of the Silver Jubilee Degree College, Kurnool to the Society and the above proposed posts may be sanctioned as per the norms of the Society to run the hostel on par with APRDC, Nagarjunsagar. I also request the Government that the services of present staff working on daily wages in the hostel (list enclosed) may be regularised duly relaxing all necessary recruitment rules in this regard."
26. It is pertinent to mention that the first name in the list is that of the Store Keeper i.e., the petitioner herein. This letter is followed by several letters. The latest letter is of Rc.No.Hostel/98 dated 5-3-2000. From this letter it is noticed that two of the employees working in the hostel died, perhaps due to mal nutrition as they are being paid only starving wages. Be that as it may, after giving the list of the workers working in the hostel, the Principal has stated hereunder:
" All the workers in the hostel have approached Court of law for the regularisation of their services in view of their long years of service. They have also filed contempt cases, for the implementation of the orders issued by the Courts and at present their cases are pending with Division Bench.
I submit that their requests were not considered by the Department for want of sanctioned posts, till to date.
In this connection, I would like to request the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad to allot 1 post of Junior Assistant/Store Keeper and 10 posts in the Last Grade Service by shifting surplus posts available, for considering their cases, at least now, as their services are quite essential to meet the day to day requirements of inmates of the Hostel of this College. (Emphasis) Early favourable action is requested in the matter."
27. As usual, the Government never woke up from its deep slumber. It is possible to wake up a man who is fast asleep, but it is impossible to wake up a man who is pretending to be sleeping. Here is a government, which never tries to discharge its obligations. Except calling itself as a welfare state, there is neither any welfare of the people nor any governance based on rule of law. This Court is not concerned under what circumstances the Society was managing the affairs of the Society. I am of the firm view that when the Government is not reimbursing the amounts, the Society would not have and ought not have taken up the onerous responsibility of meeting the expenditure from its own funds as the College was taken over by the Government and such an action on the part of the society runs counter to the aims and objectives underlying the establishment of the Society. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent-Society in its additional counter stated that the management of the Hostel was taken over by the Government with effect from 1-4-1998. Hence this Court is not concerned with the controversy whether the Hostel is being run by the Society or by the Government.
28. Now, the question is that in the light of foregoing discussion whether the Court can direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation or it can straight away issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the regularisation of the services of the petitioner. For some time past, the Apex Court has taken a view that the Courts in exercise of their plenary jurisdiction can only issue directions to the respondents to pass orders in the light of the observations made in the judgment, but they cannot give positive directions or a Writ of Mandamus in mandatory language. The position was clarified by the Supreme Court in Badrinath v., Government of Tamil Nadu (2). His Lordship M. Jagannadha Rao, as he then was, speaking for the bench while repelling the contention of the senior counsel that it is not the province of the Court to issue a Mandamus to promote the appellant to the super time scale held in para 84 as follows:
" We may, however, point out that it is not as if there are no exceptions to this general principle. The occasions where the Court issued a writ of certiorari and quashed an order and had also issued a mandamus at the same time to the State or public authority could be very rare but we might emphasis that the power of this Court to mould the relief in the interest of justice in extraordinary cases cannot be doubted."
29. Thereafter the learned Judge having reviewed the entire case of writ of mandamus posed a question to be answered in para 86,which is as follows:
" In the light of the above precedents, we have considered whether this is a fit case where this Court should issue a mandamus or remit the matter back to the State Government. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts of the case, we are of the view that having regard to our findings on Points 1 to 5 and to the continuous unfair treatment meted out to the appellant by the State of Tamil Nadu-even as accepted by the Central government in its comments-this is a pore-eminently fit case requiring the issue of a mandamus. We are therefore, constrained to exercise all the powers of this Court for rendering justice and to cut short further proceedings. The consideration of the appellant's case for the said promotion has been hanging fire and going up and down for the last twenty-five years. Disgusted with the delays, the appellant has also taken voluntary retirement. In the light of our decision on Points 1 to 5, we declare the censure on the fourth case as void and without jurisdiction and in the alternative also as liable to be quashed under Wednesbury principles. The adverse remarks of by-gone years prior to 1972 have lost all their sting. The positive factors in the appellant's favour both recorded (at the compulsion of the Central Government) and others to which we have referred to earlier as meriting consideration are, in our opinion, sufficient to entitle him for promotion to the super time scale."
30. In para 87 of the judgement, their Lordships further held as follows:
"In the special and peculiar circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to grant the appellant the benefit of the super time scale from the date on which the appellant's junior Sri. P.Kandaswamy was granted super time scale. The respondents are accordingly directed to pass an order in this behalf within eight weeks of the receipt of this order and to give him all consequential benefits attendant thereto. The said benefits shall also be reflected in his pension and other retrial benefits. They shall be worked out and paid to him within the time aforementioned."
31. I feel that not only this case but the claims of all the temporary employees working in governmental institutions are exceptions to the general rule, for the simple reason that the State was practising an unfair labour practice of appointing well qualified persons on starving daily wages and they are adopting the policy of hire and fire without regularising their services. In fact at the instance of Courts, the Government framed a scheme for regularisation of the temporary employees and the very next moment it is trying to find out ways and means to tort the legitimate expectations of the employees to get their services regularised. Even after issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 212 dated 22-4-1994 the Government regularised the services of only about 5,000 employees and left about 70,000 employees high and dry. As and when these poor employees approach the Courts and obtain orders for consideration of their claims, the Government have gone to the extent of amending the Act 2 of 1994 nullifying the effect of the judgement and finding the ways and means to throw these persons out of employment.
32. As stated supra, the petitioner was appointed on consolidated wage of Rs. 150/- in 1984 i.e., about 16 years back and since 1993 he is in the Court seeking a living wage and have a finality about his service
33. For all these reasons, I am inclined to issue a positive direction i.e., Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as a Store Keeper in the time scale of pay of Rs.1745-40-1825-50-2075-60-2375-75-2750-90-3200-110-3420 from 29-11-1995 the day on which the Government have resumed the management of the College in G.O.Rt. No. 2669, Edn.CE-1/ Department, dated 29-11-1995 as per the directions of this Court in W.A.No.1010 of 1996 dated 2-9-1996 within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the Principal himself recommended the Society regarding the time scale of pay to be paid to the petitioner and as the Society was in control of the Hostel affairs till 1-4-1998, the arrears have to be paid by the Society as per the directions of this Court cited above and thereafter the Government. The Government shall start paying the time scale of pay to the petitioner from February 2001 and the arrears within the time stipulated above. On regularisation of his service, the petitioner is entitled to claim all consequential benefits attendant thereto i.e., terminal and pensionary benefits that are being extended to the government employees.
34. It is needless to observe that the Society can claim reimbursement from the Government as the Society itself involved in maintaining the Hostel, which was not its function, perhaps to oblige the pay master.
35. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, the W.V.M.P. is dismissed.
36. In the light of the orders passed in this Writ Petition, the Contempt Case is closed.
37. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.