Punjab-Haryana High Court
K C Yadav vs Kurukshetra University And Ors on 15 December, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1865 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.12.2014
Dr. K.C.Yadav ..Appellant
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
****
S.J.VAZIFDAR A.C.J. (Oral)
This is an appeal against an order dated 21.08.2013 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the first respondent's decision dated 09.03.1990 (Annexure P-8). By the above said decision, the first respondent agreed to grant the appellant certain amounts. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision to the effect that the payments had to be made only on receipt of the grants for the purpose, from the University Grants Commission.
2. The appellant had been appointed as a Professor in the University by respondent No.1. During the relevant period, the appellant was granted additional charge of Dean of Colleges. The post of Professor of History is a teaching post whereas the post of Dean of Colleges is a non- teaching post. The appellant relied upon Rule 22 i.e. Pay and Allowances for holding Additional Charge of Post which falls under Chapter 3 of the RAVINDER SHARMA 2014.12.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1865 of 2013 2 Kurukshetra University Calendar, Volume-III 1993 Edition. The title preceding Rule 22 is "pay and allowances for holding additional charge of post". Rule 22(3) reads as under:-
"Pay and allowances for holding Additional Charge of post 22 (i) .................
(ii) .................
(iii) An employee placed in-charge of the full duties of a post of status equivalent to his own basic post will receive allowance @ 20% of the minimum of the scale of the post."
3. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 22(iii) (supra) as the said Rule governs the terms and conditions of service of the employees (other than the University teachers and the Registrar). In other words, it is contended on behalf of the first respondent that the Rules do not apply to the appellant as he was appointed on a teaching post namely that of Professor of History.
4. The case does not appear to be open and shut. There is some ambiguity as to whether the Rules apply or not in view of the fact that the additional post is a non-teaching post. For this purpose, it is not necessary to consider this issue in this judgment in view of the first respondent's stand taken in the meeting of the Executive Council held on 09.03.1990. Item No. 14 of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council reads as under:-
"Item No. 14 E.C. 9.3.1990
14. Re-considered, if
i) Dr. K.C.Yadav, Professor in the Department of History who performed the duties of the Dean of Colleges, in addition to his normal duties as Professor in the Department of History from 01.10.1985 to 31.07.1988 be given allowances @ 20% of the minimum of the scale of the post;
AND RAVINDER SHARMA 2014.12.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1865 of 2013 3
ii) he be given the benefit of Earned leave for the period from 28.09.1985 to 31.07.1988 as per clause 4(b)(ii) appearing at page 114 of the University Calendar Volume III, 1984 (Leave Regulations 1963) reproduced as under:-
"4(b)(ii) An employee in the vacation He may be allowed the Department transferred to the credit of earned leave non-vacation department in from the date of reopen-
between the period from the ing of the Teaching
date of re-opening of the Department after
department after Autumn Autumn Break"
break and before starting
of the Winter break.
RESOVED THAT :-
i) PROPOSAL (i) BE APPROVED.
ii) IN THE CASE OF PROPOSAL (ii) EITHER EARNED LEAVE TO WHICH HE BECOMES ENTITLED TO DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED AT (i) OR ALLOWANCE AS AT PROPOSAL (i) BE GIVEN FOR THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF EARNED LEAVE.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT THE ABOVE PAYMENTS BE MADE ONLY ON RECEIPT OF GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE FROM THE U.G.C."
5. It is important to note that firstly the Executive Council expressly acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to the amount on account of his holding the additional post as Dean of Colleges. It is not necessary, therefore, for us to consider whether he was entitled as a matter of right to the same or not. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the same as a matter of right, it was not open to the first respondent to place further condition namely that the amounts would be paid only in the event of respondent No.1 receiving funds from the University Grants Commission. That is a matter between respondent No.1 and the University Grants Commission.
RAVINDER SHARMA 2014.12.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1865 of 2013 4
6. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not raised in this particular manner before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, therefore, cannot be faulted for the impugned decision. However, in view of what we have held above, the appellant succeeds.
7. It is important to note that the stand taken by the Executive Council was not in isolation. A similar stand had been taken by the first respondent in the case of another employee one Dr. R.S.Singh, who was employed as a Professor of English and was given additional charge as Registrar, the former being a teaching post and the latter being a non- teaching post. The said Dr.R.S.Singh is identically placed as the appellant. We do not for a moment suggest that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of an error, if any, on the part of first respondent in another case. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the consistent view taken by the first respondent was erroneous.
8. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside. The arrears shall be paid to the appellant by respondent No.1 within a period of 12 weeks with interest at 6% per annum from the date the amount was due.
(S.J.VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 15.12.2014 'ravinder' RAVINDER SHARMA 2014.12.19 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document