Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs K.K. Sharma, M.A., B.T., Teacher And ... on 19 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)119PLR239
Author: K.S. Kumaran
Bench: K.S. Kumaran
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated Nov. 15, 1988 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.P. No. 1288 of 1984, K.K. Sharma v. State of Punjab. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that writ petitioners, Shri K.K. Sharma joined service of Shri Sanatan Dharam Higher Secondary School, Bathinda, in the year 1960. On 5.4.1976, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by the principal of School, Shri Om Parkash Seth, who is one of the respondents in these appeals. This was followed by a charge sheet and a regular enquiry which led to the passing of a resolution by the Managing Committee of the school to dismiss the petitioner from service. The Deputy Commissioner to whom the resolution was forwarded refused to confirm the action of the management on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Services) Act, 1969 and Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Services) Rules, 1974. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, before whom the appeal was filed by the management of the school, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. However, the management did not pay him the arrears of salary and did not give him the benefit of pay fixation. This led to the filing of the writ petition No. 1288 of 1984, in which the following prayer were made :-
(a) records of the case may be called for;
(b) a writ of mandamus be issued to the..........respondent-authorities directing them to fix the pay of the petitioner and he should be paid arrears due to him;
(c) condition of issuing advance notices to the respondents may kindly be dispensed with;
(d) filing of certified copies of annexures P/1 to P/13, may also kindly be dispensed with.
(e) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, directing the authorities to fix the pay of the petitioner and make the payment of arrears, be issued.
(f) costs of the writ petition may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
2. In the reply filed by them, respondent No. 3 and 4 pleaded that the management of the school has already paid its share i.e. 5% of the arrears of salary to the petitioner and the remaining 958 is to be paid by the Education Department and the petitioner is free to realise the same from other respondents. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 (appellants in L.P.A. No. 411 of 1989) pleaded that the grant-in-aid is paid keeping in view the teaching staff and the number of period taught by each teacher and in case a teacher teaches for periods less than the prescribed periods, his grant-in-aid is to be proportionately reduced. They also pleaded that the writ petitioners has not taught classes during the period of suspension and therefore, the Education Department was not bound to make payment of arrears. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge held that the State Government is liable to pay 95% of the aid towards the post held by the petitioner. Accordingly, he directed the State to pay the arrears of salary by way of grant upto 95% to the management of the school.
3. We have heard Shri Rupinder Khosla and Shri Rajesh Kumar and have perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was an employee of Shri Sanatan Dharam Higher Secondary School and the management of the school was under obligation to pay him the salary. The State Government was to reimburse the salary etc. to the management of the school after receiving the information about the amount paid by it to the teachers etc.....The writ petitioner was suspended by the management of the school without any involvement of the State Government and the officers of the Education Department. The suspension of the writ petitioner continued notwithstanding the fact that the same was not approved by the competent authority. The order of dismissal passed by the management was also not confirmed by the competent authority and the appeal filed by the management was rejected by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. It must, therefore, be held that the responsibility of passing illegal orders of suspension and dismissal of the writ petitioners was solely of the management of the school. Therefore, the consequences of the invalidation of these illegal orders had to be suffered by the management of the school and in our opinion, the State Government could not have been burdened with the responsibility of making the payment of arrears of salary to the writ petitioner.
4. A perusal of the order under challenged shows that the learned single judge has not assigned any reasons for holding the State Government liable to pay the arrears of salary to the writ petitioner. The order also does not contain any reason as to why the State Government and its functionaries should be held responsible for payment of arrears in spite of the circular No. 17/10-78-Grants- 1, dated 23.8.1978 by which the Government had made it clear that it will not be responsible for the payment of salary or subsistence allowance for the suspension period in respect of the employees suspended by the Managing Committee. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the learned single judge.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed. The direction given by the learned single judge to the State to release the grant-in-aid to the management of the school is set aside. However, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to pay to the writ petitioner, the amount of arrears of salary and also undertake the fixation of his pay within a period of four months of the submission of the certified copy of this order.