Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarla Kumari vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Raj Kumar Arora
CWP-9294-2012 (O&M) 2013.11.19 15:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-9294-2012 (O&M).
Decided on: November 11, 2013.
Sarla Kumari
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Saurabh Dalal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG., Haryana.
Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate,
for respondent No.3
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is working as a Typewriter Instructor in Geet Vidya Mandir, Sonepat, respondent No.3.
Through the instant writ petition, she has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay scale and status of Lecturer in Computer Science subject in which subject she had been teaching for the session 2003-2004 to B.Com, students in the respondent-institute.
Claim of the petitioner has been contested on the ground that she cannot be promoted to the post of Lecturer in Government aided private college as the said post can be filled only by direct recruitment subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria. The 1 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-9294-2012 (O&M) 2013.11.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document eligibility for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science is Post Graduation degree with NET in subject of Computer Science. The petitioner is only Post Graduate in Computer Science. Rule 6 of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006, provides that no person shall be appointed to any service unless he/she is in possession of qualification/experience as specified by the University Grants Commission/University/State Government as the case may be. She has also not faced any interview for the post of Lecturer.
The claim of the petitioner that she had been officiating w.e.f. Session 2003-2004 i.e. for the last 10-11 years as Computer Science Lecturer has not been refuted by respondent No.3.
In para 7 of the reply, it has been averred that if this Court holds the petitioner entitled for the benefit she is claiming as pe rules and in accordance with the law of land then the respondent- College is not having any objection to refix her pay and pay the arrears.
Faced with this situation, Mr.R.D.Sharma, State counsel has submitted that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions to be appointed as Lecturer as per the University Grants Commission norms. So far as her claim for having performed the duties of higher responsibilities are concerned reliance has been placed by the state counsel on the judgment in case Laxman 2 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-9294-2012 (O&M) 2013.11.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Dundappa Dhamanekar Vs.Management of Vishwa Bharata Sewa Samiti, AIR 2001 SC 2836, wherein it was observed that in cases of default of the management for non observation of rules, the Management will have to pay the arrears of salary from its own funds and not from the financial assistance received from the Government in case of private colleges, getting grant-in-aid from the Government. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working in the pay scale of `9300 34800 + 3200 Grade Pay. It has not been denied specifically that she has been performing duties of higher responsibilities. Though the petitioner cannot be granted the pay scale of Lecturer/Assistant Professor as she has neither been appointed as Lecturer nor she fulfills the eligibility conditions laid down by University Grants Commission, but in view of the fact that she has been performing the duties of higher responsibilities she is entitled to the higher emoluments.
This petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will be paid higher pay scale equivalent to the basic salary of the Lecturer for the period for which she had been performing the duties of Lecturer in Computer Science plus usual allowances as per the rules. The said arrears will be paid to her for a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the petition. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Computer Science is further rejected on the ground of her ineligibility. It is further observed that the petitioner will be paid above said enhanced salary 3 Raj Kumar Arora CWP-9294-2012 (O&M) 2013.11.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for the services rendered by her for higher responsibilities as Lecturer. It will be the responsibility of the Management to pay the above said amount in view of the judgment cited above.
(M.M.S. BEDI) November 11, 2013. JUDGE rka 4