Partly allowed

Managing Committee S.A. Jain Senior Secondary School v. Anjala Khanna and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2013LPA/852/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal challenges a single judge order granting pay parity to lecturers in government-aided private schools. The High Court allowed the appeal regarding two specific respondents appointed on contract basis, setting aside the single judge's order for them and remitting the matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.1.2013 set aside regarding Respondents 1 and 2; matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh decision on pay parity.

Managing Committee S.A. Jain Senior… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.852 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision : May 03, 2013

¶3

The Managing Committee, SA Jain Senior Secondary School, Ambala

¶4

.....Appellant

¶5

versus

¶6

Smt.Anjala Khanna and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶9

Present : Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.K.Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms.Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate, for the caveator-respondents.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The Managing Committee of S.A.Jain Senior Secondary School, Ambala has preferred this letters patent appeal against the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a bunch of writ petitions filed by the Lecturers working in Government Aided Privately Managed Schools, for the grant of pay scales at par with their counter-parts working in the Government Schools, is allowed.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the caveator-respondents at some length and gone through the record.

¶17

The short question raised in this appeal is whether the parity in pay-scale could be granted to respondent Nos.1 & 2 also who were statedly appointed on contract basis vide appointment letters dated 3.1.1997 (Annexure R-21/2) and 21.11.1998 (Annexure

¶18

[2]

¶19

LPA No.852 of 2013 (O&M)

¶20

R-21/3)? It is contended that the mode of recruitment against the post sanctioned under the Grant-in-aid Scheme is different than the unsanctioned posts against which respondent Nos.1 & 2 are said to have been appointed.

¶21

Since the afore-stated issue has not been expressly gone into by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal, we setaside the order dated 16.1.2013 qua respondent Nos.1 & 2 and remit the case to learned Single Judge to decide the same afresh in the light of the question formulated herein-above. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

¶22

The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective contentions which have not been referred to in this order, before the learned Single Judge.

¶23

The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 27.5.2013.

¶24

Status-quo regarding appointment of respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall be maintained till the matter is decided afresh by the learned Single Judge.

Dispose of.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

May 03, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Managing Committee S.A. Jain Senior Secondary School v. Anjala Khanna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Committee S.A. Jain Senior Secondary School v. Anjala Khanna and Ors.

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

Rattan Lal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Shamsher Singh and Anr. R/O Vill. Mundlana Distt. Sonepat

Sanjeev Gupta Vs Sonia Gupta & Anr.

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kapoor Chand Nagpal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.