Dismissed

Arvind Rana and Ors. v. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan U.T. Chd. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2008CWP/17474/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, appointed on contractual basis under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, sought parity in salary and benefits with regular Union Territory employees. Court held they accepted terms explicitly excluding increments and pension.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; same benefits as regular Union Territory employees, including maternity leave and summer vacation emoluments, not granted.

Arvind Rana and Ors. Vs Sarva… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.17474 of 2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.17474 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.10.2008

Arvind Rana & others

...Petitioners

Versus

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society & another ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. R.B. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Rajan Gupta, J.

¶11

The present petition has been preferred by several employees serving under a Government of India Scheme, namely, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, seeking parity with other Union Territory employees in the matter of salary and other service benefits.

¶12

The petitioners have averred that respondent No.1 i.e. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is subject to writ jurisdiction of this court. It has been further averred that respondent No.1 Society advertised various posts in the news paper, pursuant to which the petitioners applied. It has been stated that qualification and procedure for selection was the same as that meant for regular appointment to the posts in

¶13

CWP No.17474 of 2008 2

¶14

the Union Territory. The petitioners were selected and appointed. The details of such selections have been given by the petitioners in Annexure P-1. The appointment letter in respect of certain petitioners has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioners is that the qualification as well as the procedure of appointment being the same as for other Union Territory employees, the petitioners are entitled to same benefits under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the scheme being substantially funded by the Government of India. Thus the petitioners have prayed for parity in respect of payment of salary as admissible to other Union Territory employees, emoluments in respect of summer vacations, benefit of maternity leave etc.

¶16

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners who has mainly stressed that action of the respondents in not extending the same benefits to the petitioners as available to regular Union Territory employees in respect of salary, maternity leave, emoluments for summer vacations, is discriminatory and arbitrary.

¶17

Though the advertisement, pursuant to which the petitioners applied for the posts in question, has not been annexed to the petition, a perusal of Annexure P-3, which is an advertisement issued by the Government of Punjab under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan shows that the same is a purely temporary scheme under which applications are invited for appointment on contractual basis. In the terms and conditions,

¶18

CWP No.17474 of 2008 3

¶19

which are referred to in the said advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned that posts are on purely contractual basis and initially for a period of one year. The relevant para reads thus:

¶20

“All posts are offered on purely contractual basis initially for 1 year but the same may be renewed on the basis of performance and attainments of candidates every year and also whether the sanction of these posts is continued by PAB for subsequent years or not.”

¶21

Even the appointment letter Annexure P-2, which has been placed on record, categorically states that the appointment is purely contractual in nature and shall stand automatically terminated on lapse of one year unless renewed further in writing. Certain clauses incorporated in the appointment letter deserve to be referred to which reads as under:-

¶22

“2. That the tenure of contract is from the date of joining to 31^st March, 2008. The contract appointment IPSOFACTO shall stand automatically terminated on 1^st April, 2008, unless and until it is renewed in writing. No formal notice or order shall be necessary to be issued by the Society for termination of the services of the appointee concerned after the expiry of the contract period.

¶23

That the contract appointment can be terminated at any time (on either side) by giving one month's notice or by giving one months remuneration/ emoluments without assigning any reason or on account of failure to complete the period of contract appointment to the satisfaction of the competent

¶24

CWP No.17474 of 2008 4

¶25

authority of the Society. Similarly, in case, the one month notice for resignation is not given, the appointee will have to deposit the remuneration/ emoluments for the period falling short of one month along with the resignation letter. However, the contract appointment can be terminated without any notice in case of unsatisfactory work or in the event of character and antecedents, being reported to be unsatisfactory.

¶26

¶27

That the consolidated (fixed) remuneration/ emoluments of the post is Rs.8000/- (Rs. eight thousand only) per month. No other allowance is admissible.

¶28

That there shall be no increase in the remuneration. You will not be entitled to any further annual increment or allowances etc. during the currency of the contract.

¶29

That you will not be entitled to any benefit like provident fund, pension, gratuity, seniority or any other benefit available to the government servants appointed on regular basis.”

¶30

It also appears that the petitioners entered into a written agreement with the respondents in respect of the contract and thus accepted the terms and conditions thereof. This shall be clear from the fact that in the appointment letter Annexure P-2, it was clearly specified that in case the offer of appointment was acceptable to the candidates on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter, he would have to report to the office immediately alongwith four copies of the

¶31

CWP No.17474 of 2008 5

¶32

contract agreement duly signed on a stamp paper.

¶33

It appears that all the candidates were appointed after they entered into a contract with the respondents and accepted the terms and conditions of appointment. Besides, it is quite clear that the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, which is partly or substantially funded by the Government of India, is a purely temporary scheme and liable to be discontinued at any time. Even the tenure of appointment is initially for one year unless renewed further. A consolidated salary is prescribed and it is made clear that no other allowance is admissible.

¶34

In our considered view, no interference is called for by this court in the present case in view of the fact that the petitioners accepted the conditions of the appointment letter with open eyes. The grievance regarding parity in salary and other service benefits, after having accepted the terms of appointment, is misconceived. As regards grievance regarding salary for summer vacations, the appointment letter shows that fixed emoluments per month have been provided. As regards maternity leave, it has been stated in the petition itself that three months' maternity leave is admissible under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, without pay.

¶35

No other point has been argued.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶37

CWP No.17474 of 2008 6

¶38

As regards maintainability of the writ petition against respondent No.1 i.e. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society, we do not feel the necessity of going into the same as we have already considered various pleas of the petitioners. This question is, therefore, left open.

¶39

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶40

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶41

October 01, 2008

¶42

'rajpal'

Arvind Rana and Ors. v. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan U.T. Chd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Rana and Ors. v. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan U.T. Chd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunita Arora Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pushpa Rani Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.