Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision : 22.7.2013 vs The Vice Chancellor on 22 July, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
Singh Daljit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
2013.07.30 16:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011
Date of Decision : 22.7.2013
Harminder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Guru Nanak Dev University
and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.4.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that appropriate writ, orders or directions be issued directing the respondent No.4 to implement the order passed by respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. Vice- Chancellor and Registrar of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar dated 4.1.2011 and 13.10.2011.
The petitioner was working as Lecturer from 12.7.2004 to 31.3.2008 at Amritsar College of Engineering and Technology, Amritsar. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Professor and worked as such from 1.4.2008 to 25.8.2008, drawing a basic pay of Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -2- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.12,420/- as on 25.8.2008.
The petitioner was then appointed as Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering (Mechanical Engineering) at Guru Nanak Dev University Regional Campus, Jalandhar on 22.8.2008.
The competent authority after the decision of the Syndicate decided to place the petitioner in the basic pay of Rs.12,000/-. While taking this decision the following rule framed by the Syndicate of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar vide its Para No.15 dated 30.3.2001 was kept in mind :
i) That as matter of policy, the pay of the persons who join this university on the same post i.e. same designation and pay scale or on higher post, will be fixed on the basis of last pay certificate submitted by them from their parent department. In this University, he will draw pay at the same stage at which he was drawing in his parent department. However, he will earn his annual increment in this university on the same date on which he would have drawn in his parent department.
ii) However, the appointing authority shall have the power to sanction a higher start to the employees as may deem fit.
iii) The employees joining this University from a higher post to a lower post at his own convenience shall Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -3- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document draw the minimum of the time scale on which they are appointed unless approved otherwise as at (ii) above."
The petitioner then started working in this pay scale. This decision of the Syndicate met with an audit objection and the petitioner was denied this pay scale forcing him to come to this Court by way of CWP No.10381 of 2010, which was decided on 14.7.2010 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 30.9.2009 preferred by the petitioner. The said representation was decided by the University reaffirming its earlier decision in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the said decision has been appended to the petition as Annexure P-8. The Deputy Controller Local Audit to whom the matter was again sent did not respond to this and representations and registered notices were sent by the petitioner to him. Since no action was taken, the petitioner was constrained to file another civil writ petition bearing No.9756 of 2011 which was decided on 30.5.2011. Once again directions were issued to the Deputy Controller Local Audit to decide the case of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Thereafter the order Annexure P-11 has been passed which has been impugned by the petitioner and vide which the Deputy Controller Local Audit has declined the case of the petitioner by relying upon clause (iii) of the rules which is extracted herebelow once again at the cost of repetition :
"iii) The employees joining this University from a higher post to a lower post at his own convenience shall Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -4- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document draw the minimum of the time scale on which they are appointed unless approved otherwise as at (ii) above."
The University, on the other hand, did not agree with the stand taken by the Deputy Controller Local Audit and reiterated its earlier decision to grant the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner by virtue of its decision which has been appended to the reply filed on behalf of the University as Annexure R-1/2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the fact that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in the University through proper channel and an approval had been granted by the Vice Chancellor and also despite the fact that the Syndicate and the competent authority has time and again reiterated the decision to place the petitioner in a scale of Rs.12,000/-, the Deputy Controller Local Audit has without any justification withheld this benefit and the impugned order giving reasons in support of such a decision is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the University has supported the cause of the petitioner in view of the categoric decision which the competent authority has already taken in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, disputes the claim of the petitioner by placing reliance on the above extracted clause (iii) of the rules.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that a gross injustice has been caused to the petitioner on Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -5- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document account of stubborn stand taken by respondent No.4.
It may not be out of place to mention here that this Court had passed the order earlier on 18.3.2013 and directed the Deputy Controller Local Audit to remain present in Court.
Despite the clear indication given by this court in its order the stand of respondent No.4 is unrelenting. Be that as it may, the Court is to examine the justification of stand taken by the said respondent.
If the rule upon which the case of the petitioner has been considered and decided by the competent authority is to be seen, then evidently the appointing authority was having the right to decide such terms and conditions of appointment and pay as has been done in the case of the petitioner.
Even if the plea of respondent No.4 is considered, then the rule is not absolute in terms that a person joining from a higher post to a lower post at his own convenience is to be placed in a minimum pay scale at which he is appointed because of the rider which finds mention in the rule itself indicating that the appointing authority has the authority to approve otherwise in accordance with law. Rule (ii) would mean that the appointing authority has a power to sanction a higher start if it may deem fit. This clause (ii) if exercised by the appointing authority would oust any other eventuality contemplated in clause (iii).
Since the Syndicate of the University has categorically decided in favour of the petitioner regarding the terms of his Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -6- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appointment and pay and duly supported by the Vice-Chancellor in his approval, the Deputy Controller Local Audit was clearly in the wrong in insisting upon a stand devoid of any sustainable reasoning that too despite the decision of the appointing authority.
The Court also finds that respondent No.4 has unnecessarily forced the petitioner to come to the court three times in a row by insisting on a stand which is totally unjustified and more particularly when the order dated 18.3.2013 indicated sufficiently about the unjustified stand taken by the said respondent. Besides this, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another v. Sardari Lal and others (2003) 10 Supreme Court cases 253 has held that the University is an autonomous body and the State government cannot exercise any control over the matters pertaining to utilisation of its funds etc. This would only highlight the aggravated unjust stand of respondent no.4 who has persisted with some tenacity.
For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of pay as has been determined by his principal employer the University which decision has been duly approved by the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor. For the harassment caused to the petitioner and the wastage of time of this court, the respondent No.4 is burdened with costs of Rs.1 lac which shall be recovered from the personal pay of the officer who has insisted with the stand after holding an inquiry and deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Singh Daljit C.W.P.No.24273 of 2011 -7- 2013.07.30 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court.
The enquiry be completed within one month from today and costs be deposited within one month thereafter. Compliance report be placed on record.
22.7.2013 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss