Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dav College Of Education For Women vs State Of Punjab & Others on 21 May, 2009

Author: Ajai Lamba

Bench: Ajai Lamba

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                    Civil Writ Petition No.7718 of 2009
                                           Date of Decision: May 21, 2009


DAV College of Education For Women, Amritsar
                                                         .....PETITIONER(S)

                                    VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                        .....RESPONDENT(S)

                                .      .      .


CORAM:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -          Mr. Aman Chaudhary,                 Advocate,       for
                    the petitioner.



                                .      .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
                    The   prayer           made   in   this     civil    writ

petition     filed        under       Article          226/227     of     the

Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the directions given by Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.14340 of 2006 titled 'Arya College, Ludhiana Vs. State of Punjab & Others', decided on 18.12.2007.

                    It    has       been     brought      out    that     the

petitioner     is    helping         the     State      to    achieve     its

welfare policies. The State of Punjab implemented a scheme known as `95% Deficit Grant in Aid Scheme' for granting financial assistance to non government CWP No.7718 of 2009 [2] aided colleges. The State Government took a conscious decision to provide financial assistance to private aided colleges to enable these colleges to pay the scales recommended by the UGC so as to maintain minimum standards in higher education on the basis of sanctioned strength of teaching and non teaching employees. Because the respondents are not releasing the admissible grant in aid, the petitioner is unable to pay the teaching and non teaching staff which seriously hampers the working of the Institution.

Issue notice of motion.

                      Mr.       Anil        Sharma,          Senior          Deputy

Advocate     General,          Punjab,        on     the     asking        of     the

Court, accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been handed over.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute that grant in aid is required to be released in terms of the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner.

I have considered the issue. The Division Bench in the case of Arya College, Ludhiana (supra), issued directions in the following terms:-

"Accordingly, we direct the State to meet its liability as per its declared scheme within three months from today. The State will be at liberty to rely upon the record already available or to have access to such other record of the petitioner-college as, may be necessary, but on this account, the State will not avoid its liability. We make it clear that Secretary, Higher Education, Punjab will be held personally liable in case of default in meeting the liability."
CWP No.7718 of 2009 [3]
This Court has considered the very issue while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.4464 of 2009 titled 'BLM Girls College, Arya Samaj, Nawanshahr vs. State of Punjab & Others', decided on 21.3.2009 and Civil Writ Petition No.5393 of 2008, titled 'Ramgaria College of Education, Phagwara vs. State of Punjab & Others', decided on 24.4.2008, in which also the respondent-State has been directed to release the grant in aid.
In Civil Writ Petition No.3191 of 2007 titled `The Managing Committee, Guru Gobind Singh College, Saghera, Barnala, District Sangrur vs. State of Punjab & Another' decided on 19.2.2008, similar view has been taken and direction was issued to the respondents to release grant in aid. Special Leave Petition was filed by the State of Punjab, the same being SLP No.15798 of 2008 which was dismissed on 8.12.2008.
Considering the directions issued by this Court in various cases as noticed above, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the respondents shall pay 85% of the grant-in-aid due to the petitioner within a period of 4 months after clearance of objections by the petitioner. So far as balance 15% of the amount of grant-in-aid due is concerned, the petitioner may submit separate representation to the respondents.
                      Petition    is    allowed      in         the    above

terms.

                                                          (AJAI LAMBA)
May 21, 2009                                                 JUDGE
avin