Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana Ors on 21 September, 2016
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and
CWP No.14226 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and
CWP No.14226 of 2016
Date of Decision: 21.09.2016
Deepak Kumar and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
CM No.11308 of 2016 Notice of the application.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice. On August 08, 2016 I passed the following order:-
"This order will dispose of the above cited cases, as common questions of law and fact are involved in them which can conveniently be decided by a common order. The facts are taken from CWP No.14226 of 2016.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. There can be no doubt that in the facts of this case the decision in this petition should be governed by the order already passed by this Court on July 29, 2016 in CWP For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:33 ::: CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and CWP No.14226 of 2016 -2- No.16975 of 2014 titled Mrs. Rita Tandon versus State of Haryana and others. This Court also has no doubt that the Education Department in Haryana will faithfully abide by the directions issued by this Court in CWP 13555 of 2016 titled Anju Bala & Others v. State of Haryana and Others and if any improvements or fine tuning is required thereto or envisioned for better management of the cadre even beyond the terms of the orders, the competent authority will take such apt measures to make transfers equitable and transparent, so that justice is seen to be done to all school teachers in the matter of posting and transfers.
With these directions and hope, the above captioned petitions stand disposed of. In case situation demands and where retention of the petitioners may be found necessary in the overall interest of the student community, they can be posted to nearby colleges where they can easily commute without great inconvenience and hardship. Mitigating circumstances, no doubt will be kept in mind in the huge exercise to resolve competing interests as are consistent with good governance.
The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, will sensitize their officers in Colleges and the Principals not to treat the petitioners with disdain and as lesser mortals so that no one in the administration at the grass roots says that in absence of orders of the High Court in each un- litigated case, their services will be discontinued of those who are on Guest Faculty or in Extension lecture engagements. They have also a social purpose to serve in education till the system is not disbanded and regular appointments are made. The engagement of persons like the petitioners, do not depend on Court orders or its control as that is within the domain of the transferring authority because this Court does no more than to exercise judicial review of action taken and whether it is within the policy and it is not abused by arbitrary action, malice and mala fides, and therefore, the remaining exercise be done in the spirit of the orders passed by this Court, give and take and For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:36 ::: CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and CWP No.14226 of 2016 -3- the transfer policy of teachers but albeit with a human touch, in public interest and in the exigencies of fair administration."
The present application prays for tinkering with my order dated August 08, 2016 and for positive directions to the respondents to grant monetary reliefs which they imagine the orders gave to them. They are obviously dissatisfied with the orders on account of disobedience alleged by the authorities in non-implementation of those orders. Evidently the order declared none of their rights claimed in the petition. The petitioners are in fact aggrieved not so much by the non-implementation of order but want teeth put in it. Because they feel aggrieved, the application is allowed and the order dated August 08, 2016 is recalled in terms set out below by declaration of their lack of rights claimed.
Main Case
1. Mr. Dalbir Singh, learned counsel has been heard afresh on his prayers in the original writ petition. First of which is for grant of minimum pay scale to Extension Lecturers. The second is to keep them in service till regular recruits are available. Third is for arrears of salary and; Fourth, to pay them salary for the vacation period. The service rendered by Extension Lecturers are not appointments but engagements on lecture basis with ceiling limits of money prescribed for the month. They earn no salary from the Government. These engagements are not to be seen as public employment but as temporary ad hoc measures to cope up with the teaching assignments in schools and colleges where State has been unable to make regular recruitments. The procedure itself is hybrid and the State cannot be For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:36 ::: CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and CWP No.14226 of 2016 -4- complemented on such an arrangement but looking to its resources then there may be justification in engaging Extension Lecturers so that in Colleges the interests of students does not suffer for lack of teachers which shortfalls may arise in myriad fact situations many of which cannot even be contemplated today. This arrangement is a passing phase. I have no doubt in my mind that Extension Lecturers are not legally entitled to minimum of the pay scales of salaries/ scales of pay paid to regular employees nor are they entitled to salary for the vacation period being paid on lecture basis and their cases are not similar to the cases of ad hoc employees considered by the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana passed in Civil Appeal No.4600 of 1985, dated 16.08.1985. They are paid honorarium per lecture and, therefore, the question of arrears of pay also does not arise and their emoluments cannot be enlarged by Court beyond what the policy envisages.
2. Therefore, I have no reason not to revisit my order and on reconsideration of the matter, which opportunity this application gives, to allow any of the employees the benefits claimed by them in the main case. In fact, my order was a generalized order with no time bound directions and without declaration of rights. I am told that the contempt petition arising out my order filed by the petitioners has been withdrawn by them.
3. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana who is present in Court and had appeared in the main matter has brought to my notice the orders passed in LPA No.1219 of 2015, State of Haryana and others v. Kamaljit Yadav and others, decided on July 25, 2016 and the Appellate Bench has stayed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court which For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:36 ::: CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and CWP No.14226 of 2016 -5- had directed, by an interlocutory order, the respondents to pay salary and other allowances to Guest Faculty teachers as are available to regular teachers including during the period of summer vacations. Before the appellate bench the appellant State of Haryana had argued that they had engaged Guest Faculty on payment of honorarium per lecture. It may be noted that the Division Bench did not express its final opinion but stayed the interim orders and remitted the case to the pending proceedings to be decided on merits. The present case does not involve Guest Faculty but Extension Lecturers who are not bound by written contract unlike the Guest Faculty teachers. Their services are not governed by rules of service. The orders are recalled, the application for directions is dismissed and the main petition is dismissed.
5. Nevertheless, the recall of the order and dismissal of the main petition will not preclude the petitioners from approaching the Director Higher Education, Haryana for seeking their re-engagements, in case they have done good teaching work as Extension Lecturers and are Net qualified. In case, they are not Net qualified and the College in which they taught on lecture basis does not have Net qualified Guest Faculty teachers or regular teachers then their cases may be considered sympathetically to permit the arrangement to continue for the time being. This Court expects that the Director Higher Education if approached will take care of both the interests of the petitioners, the College and the students, in the overarching dilemma of scarcity of jobs from where sustenance and livelihoods come. Suffice it to say, that if such a request is made it will be decided expeditiously and For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:36 ::: CM No.11308 of 2016 in/and CWP No.14226 of 2016 -6- during the current session.
6. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed to the extent indicated but disposed of with the hope expressed by this Court in paragraph 5 above.
7. This order is confined to present application No.11308 of 2016 and the result will have no bearing on orders passed by me in all other cases.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE
21.09.2016
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
For Subsequent orders see CWP-14283-2016, CWP-14410-2016, CWP-14427-2016 and 12 more.
6 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2016 23:01:36 :::