Allowed

Guru Nank National College v. G. Vajralingam & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2012COCP/1083/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple contempt petitions filed by aided colleges regarding unreleased grant-in-aid. The court held that while management cannot claim aid for un-aided posts as a right, the State remains liable for its 20% share under UGC recommendations. The contempt order was set aside and respondents directed to reconsider and release dues.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions disposed of; speaking order of 9.11.2012 set aside; respondents directed to reconsider state liability and release due grant-in-aid within three months.

Guru Nank National College Vs G… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P.No.1083 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 30, 2012
Guru Nanak National College, Doraha .....Petitioner versus
Dr.G.Vajralingam and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.254 of 2012 (O&M)
Prem Chand Markanda SD College for Women .....Petitioner versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.355 of 2012 (O&M)
SRPA Adarsh Bhartiya College .....Petitioner versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.356 of 2012 (O&M)
Doaba College and another .....Petitioners versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1090 of 2012 (O&M)
SPN College .....Petitioner versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.2906 of 2011 (O&M)
Master Tara Singh Memorial College for Women & anr. .....Petitioners versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.3115 of 2011 (O&M)
Lyallpur Khalsa College for Boys and another .....Petitioners versus
Dr.Roshan Sarkaria and another .....Respondents

¶3

CCOP Nos.1083 of 2012 & connected cases

¶4

[2]

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶6

Present : Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Cheema, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶7

-.-

¶8

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶12

This order shall dispose of COCP Nos.254, 355, 356, 1083, 1090 of 2012 and 2906 & 3115 of 2011 as common issues are involved in these cases.

¶13

2] For brevity, the facts are being extracted from COCP No.1083 of 2012.

¶14

3] The petitioner is a Government Aided Privately Managed College who receives grant-in-aid from the State of Punjab under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme formulated by State Government. The petitionerCollege approached this Court in CWP No.9750 of 2010 seeking a direction for the release of grant-in-aid towards revised grade of pay granted to the teachers in terms of the notification dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Government of India on the recommendation of the University Grants Commission and which was adopted by the State Government vide notification dated 2.9.2009.

¶15

4] It may be observed here that the following financial assistance is contemplated by the above-stated notification dated 31.12.2008:-

¶16

“....(a) Financial assistance from the Central Government to State Government opting to revise pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadre covered under the Scheme shall be limited to the extent of 80% (eighty percent) of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision.

¶17

CCOP Nos.1083 of 2012 & connected cases [3]

¶18

(b) The State Government opting for revision of pay shall meet the remaining 20% (twenty percent) of the additional expenditure from its own sources.....”

¶19

5] The writ petition filed by the petitioner-Management was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2011 with the following directions:-

¶20

“....(4) In my considered view, there is no necessity to adjourn these matters for sake of reply/affidavit from the State Government. Suffice it to mention here that the petitioner-Colleges shall submit their claims in terms of the UGC recommendations as adopted/notified/ approved by the State of Punjab within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and on receipt thereof, the State Government is directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of its receipt.

¶21

(5) Needless to say that in case the petitioner(s) are found entitled for the Grant-in-Aid at the revised rate as per the UGC recommendations, the needful, in this regard, shall be done within the stipulated period....”

¶22

6] The alleged non-compliance of the above reproduced directions has led to initiation of these contempt proceedings.

¶23

7] The second respondent in purported compliance of the abovereproduced directions, has passed an order dated 9/11.1.2012 (Annexure P2), the relevant and operative part whereof reads as follows:-

¶24

“....That it is further stated that the Grant-in-Aid is released to the colleges which are covered under the 95% deficit grant-in-aid scheme for the staff who are working on aided posts. It is further stated that as per condition No.1 of the terms and conditions for grant-inaid, the grant shall be available only to the colleges,

¶25

CCOP Nos.1083 of 2012 & connected cases

¶26

[4]

¶27

which were in existence on 1.9.1978 within the area of Punjab State and which were affiliated to Punjab University, Punjabi University and Guru Nanak Dev University on or before 1.9.1978. The grant shall be available to such a college in respect of posts in existence in the college on 1.11.1977 on the condition that these posts have been created in accordance with the norms prescribed by the University or the Government and incumbents are not being paid salaries out of the students funds. Meaning thereby, the grant shall not be available to the employees who are working on un-aided posts in the aided schools.

¶28

That it is further stated that the unaided employees are appointed by the concerned management of which no financial assistance is provided by the State Government and the emoluments of such staff are to be paid by the concerned managements being the employees of the unaided staff. It is further stated that the unaided staff has no claim directly or indirectly over the State Government. Hence, the financial assistance can not be provided by the State to the employees working on unaided posts.....”

¶29

8] The second respondent after assigning the above-stated reasons, has turned down the petitioner's claim on the premise that the grant-in-aid sought by the petitioner pertains to the employees working on un-aided posts.

¶30

9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶31

10] There can indeed be no doubt that the petitioner-Management can not claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right in respect of the employees working against unaided posts. The liability of the State to re-imburse

¶32

CCOP Nos.1083 of 2012 & connected cases [5]

¶33

occurs under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme only if the posts in the privately managed college are duly sanctioned under such Scheme. Conversely, it is obligated upon the State Government to release the agreed financial assistance in respect of the posts which are duly sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. If the Central Government has undertaken to provide financial assistance to discharge additional financial burden fastened on the State Government due to grant of revised pay scales, it will not absolve the State Government to release funds to the extent of its own admitted or undisputed liability. It may be seen that 20% of the emoluments of the revised grade pay is required to be re-imbursed by the State Government subject to other terms and conditions contained in the said notification though the balance 80% is to be released by the Central Government. The speaking order passed by the second respondent is silent with regard to 20% liability of the State Government referable to the notification dated 31.12.2008 nor it refers to the petitioner's entitlement, if any, under the original Grant-in-Aid Scheme, if applicable in relation to the claim in dispute also.

¶34

11] Consequently, while setting-aside the speaking order dated 9/11.1.2012 or any other similar order passed in the connected cases, the respondents are directed to re-consider and determine the petitioner's entitlement under the Government of India notification dated 31.12.2008 read with State Government notification dated 2.9.2009 to the extent of the State's liability and further determine whether the requisite amount of grant-in-aid to that extent has been released or not? If there is any deficiency towards the same, the respondents shall be obligated to release the due amount in a time bound manner within a period of three months from the date of passing of the speaking order in respect of each Privately Managed Government Aided College. The speaking order in the present case, on re-consideration of the whole matter, shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶35

[6]

¶36

CCOP Nos.1083 of 2012 & connected cases

¶37

12] The contempt petitions stand disposed of. 13] Dasti. May 30, 2012 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Guru Nank National College v. G. Vajralingam & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Nank National College v. G. Vajralingam & Anr.

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

Delhi Parkashan Vitran Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajiv Arora and Anr.

Brij Lal Vs K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.

Jagdeep Singh Vs K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.

Jugraj Singh and Ors. Vs Prtc and Ors.

Ram Lal & Ors. Vs Manvesh Singh Sidhu

Spn College Vs G. Vajralingam & Anr.