Allowed

Dr. Daryao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2011CWP/8314/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court judge quashed an order reducing a college principal's basic pay. The court held that government instructions protecting pay drawn from previous appointments prevailed over later clarifications, ordering salary recalculation with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to recalculate salary within 3 months and release consequential benefits within 2 months.

Dr. Daryao Singh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.8314 of 1991 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.8314 of 1991 Date of Decision: 26.7. 2011

¶4

Dr. Daryao Singh ..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and another

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

Present : Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Shruti Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J ( ORAL)

¶12

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 24.1.1991 (Anneuxre P-15) and for a further direction that he is entitled to the basic pay of Rs.1900/- with effect from 1.3.1986, revised thereafter from time to time.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order reducing the petitioner's basic pay scale from Rs.1900/- to Rs.1250/and then increasing it to Rs.1780/- is illegal and void as clause I of instructions dated 25.2.1980 (Annexure P-9) clearly states that if any college makes an appointment and fixes pay on the basis of service rendered in another institution, then government aid shall be admissible for the above post. It is further argued that reliance by the respondents upon instructions dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10) is incorrect, as by a subsequent letter dated 5.6.1985 (Anneuxre P-11),

¶14

CWP No.8314 of 1991 2

¶15

the Deputy Director Colleges, has issued a clarification that the letter dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10) is prospective in operation. The impugned order has been passed without considering the letter dated 5.6.1985 (Annexure P-11), The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to basic pay of Rs.1900/- with all other consequential benefits accruing thereon.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and void as instructions dated 25.2.1980 (Annexure P-9) fully cover the case of the petitioner and protect his pay. It is further argued that Clause 1 of these instructions clearly states that if any college makes an appointment and fixes pay on the basis of service rendered in another institution, government aid shall be admissible on that post. It is further pointed out that reliance by respondent no.2 on instructions dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10) is misplaced as by a subsequent letter dated 5.6.1985 (Annexure P-11), the Deputy Director, Colleges, issued a clarification that the letter dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10) shall operate prospectively. It is prayed that as respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order without considering the letter dated 5.6.1985 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner is entitled to basic pay of Rs.1900/-.

¶17

Counsel for the respondents submits that as per instructions dated 25.2.1980 (Annexure P-9), the pay of the petitioner granted by C.R. Memorial Jat College, Hisar and DAV College, Karnal, was wrongly fixed at Rs.1600/-, 1720/-, 1780/-, 1840/-, and 1900/-. whereas, it should have been fixed at Rs.1420/-, 1480/-, 1540/-, 1600/and 1660/-. as all the appointments were fresh. It is further submitted that even if it is held that there was no question of protecting the petitioner's pay on the ground that the college management has no

¶18

CWP No.8314 of 1991 3

¶19

right to protect pay drawn by the petitioner in his previous institute.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶21

The dispute in the present case is whether the petitioner's pay is to be reduced from the pay scale granted at the time of his appointment.

¶22

The Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department, issued a letter dated 25.2.1980 (Annexure P-9). A relevant extract from this letter reads as follows:

¶23

"1. If any College make the appointment and fixed the pay on the basis of service rendered by an employee

¶24

in other institution then the Govt. aid shall be admissible on that.

¶25

2. If transfer made in other college run by the same management then pay shall be fixed on the basis of his earlier service and government aid shall be admissible.

¶26

3. While making promotion the previous pay shall be considered and the govt. aid shall be admisisble.

¶27

4. if due to closer of any institution if an employee is appointed in other Institution his pay shall be fixed by taking into consideration his previous service and it will be admissible accordingly.

¶28

In view of the above decision the benefit of previous service shall be admissible for the purpose of increment and no arrear will be granted"

¶29

The above letter, does not prohibit a private college

¶30

CWP No.8314 of 1991 4

¶31

from protecting the pay drawn by an employee in an earlier appointment. The instructions, in fact, provide that where pay is fixed on the basis of service rendered by an employee in another institution, government aid shall be admissible on such a post.

¶32

The petitioner was, admittedly, working as a Principal in DAV College, Karnal and drawing pay of Rs.1900/-, in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900/- before his appointment in M.L.N. College, Radaur and prior thereto in Jat College, Rohtak, D.A.V. College, Karnal and Jat College, Hisar. By way of the impugned order, the petitioner's pay scale was reduced by respondent no.2 from Rs.1900/- to Rs.1200/with effect from March, 1986. The petitioner filed a writ petiiton, which was disposed of by directing the respondents, to re-consider the matter. The respondents eventually reconsidered the matter, passed an order Annexure P-15, fixing the petitioner's pay scale at Rs.1780/- and simultaneously ordered recovery of Rs.4000/-. While passing the impugned order, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, apparently placed reliance upon instructions/clarifications dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10), where it is clarified that letter dated 12.4.1980 (wrongly mentioned as 24.4.1980) applies only if the applicant sent his application through proper channel and resigned from the previous post after selection in a new College. The petitioner was duly selected for the post of Principle in M.L.N. College, Radaur, after a Selection Committee, consisting of a nominee of the Director Higher Education, and the University each, gave its consent to his appointment. The petitioner resigned from his job and was duly issued an appointment letter at the initial start of Rs.1900/-. The avements that the petitioner appeared before a Selection Committee have been denied, by the respondents, in paragraph 4 of their reply,

¶33

CWP No.8314 of 1991 5

¶34

but admitted in paragraph 8 of the reply by averring that nominees of the Director Higher Education, and the University, were present in the Selection Committee. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner applied through proper channel, was interviewed, and thereafter, selected by a duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner's salary, therefore, could not be reduced, on the basis of letter dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10). In addition, a subsequent clarification issued on 5.6.1985, clearly provides that letter dated 5.6.1985 (Annexure P-11) shall operate prospectively. The respondents by ignoring letter dated 12.7.1980 (Annexure P-5), incorrectly applying letter dated 8.4.1985 (Annexure P-10) and ignoring subsequent clarification dated 5.6.1985 (Annexure P-11) have wrongly fixed the salary of the petitioner as he is entitled to protection of his pay drawn, while working with DAV College, Karnal.

¶35

In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recalculate the salary of the petitioner, within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this order and release all consequential benefits, within two months thereafter. No order as to costs.

¶36

26.7.2011 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) VK JUDGE

Dr. Daryao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Daryao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hc Jai Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Asi Balvaan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Bharat Electronics Vs Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Darshan Lal Sachdeva through Lrs Vs Ut Administration, Chd etc.

Sukhmander Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohammad Iqbal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.