Dismissed

Kanwal Prashad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2011CWP/1210/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a contract teacher in a private aided school, approached the High Court seeking fixation of pay at par with sanctioned posts and consequential benefits. The Court observed that the teacher was employed on a non-stanctioned contractual basis using school funds, excluding government contribution. Consequently, the principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply, and the petition

What the court decided

AI extract

Kanwal Prashad Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 1210 of 1993

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 1210 of 1993 Date of Decision: 12.07.2011

Kanwal Prasad

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.Jindal,

¶11

Present: Mr.Jaivir Chandail, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.K.C.Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

¶13

A.N.Jindal, J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought fixation of his pay in the Pay Scale of Rs.14002600/- at par with the other masters/teachers along with consequential benefits accruing to him.

¶15

The petitioner being B.A.(Maths) B.Ed. was appointed as a School Teacher on 2.11.1988, vide Annexure P.1 at a fixed pay of Rs.800/-. Other teachers appointed on the same posts were drawing the salary in the grade of 1400-2600 and allowances. The petitioner is also rendering the same services as those masters working on the sanctioned posts. The action of the respondents in not fixing the pay of the petitioner, at par with other masters working on the sanctioned posts, is patently illegal arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

It has been further alleged that the petitioner worked up to 23.11.1992 and in view of the discriminatory attitude of the respondents the

¶17

CWP No. 1210 of 1993

¶18

¶19

petitioner resigned his post. Thus, the petitioner has sought a direction to be issued to respondent No.4 for fixing the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 i.e. at par with other masters keeping in view the similar nature of duties performed by them.

¶20

Reply to the petition was filed wherein respondent No.4 has stated that the respondent/school is a private school run by Managing Committee of the School comprising of 13 members including the President. The petitioner had usurped about Rs.4000/- of the school money and left the school without getting no objection certificate. Now he is working as Government Teacher and at present he posted in Government High School, Sector-40, Chandigarh. It has also been alleged that the petitioner's appointment being purely on contractual basis in the private school on non-sanctioned post, he could not claim parity with other teachers who are posted on sanctioned posts.

¶21

From the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that respondent No.4 is a private aided school where there is a quota of sanctioned posts against which the teachers are employed on a statutory grade. The petitioner was employed on the non-sanctioned post by the Management on a fixed salary of Rs.800/p- per month which was accepted by him and he worked on the post from 2.11.1988 to 23.11.1992. Since the petitioner was not holding sanctioned post and his employment was purely contractual one, therefore, no such direction for imposing the condition of service and salary upon the Management (which had employed him) could be imposed as he was to be paid his salary from the income of the school. Nothing was to be contributed by the Government towards the said salary. Consequently, no such directions could be issued.,

¶22

Principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in this case.

¶23

No merit. Dismissed.

¶24

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶25

12.07.2011 rp

Kanwal Prashad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kanwal Prashad v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Chand & Ors. Vs Mahender & Ors.

Ram Kishan Vs Pb Wakf Board and Ors.

Balwinder Kaur Vs Tarjinder Kaur and Ors.

Raj Rani Vs Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

Sheelawati Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh Vs State of Haryana