IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14748 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:13.05.2011 Sh. Mohinder Parshad Singla ...Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges a communication which was sent by the Principal to the petitioner in response to the representation given by the petitioner on 31.08.1990. The representation makes a reference to the fact that he had been appointed as a lecturer on 16.07.1986 in the scales of pay of 700-1250 and he had proceeded on leave on 06.09.1987 for acquiring a B.Ed. degree and remained on leave till 15.07.1988 to rejoin duties on 06.07.1988. The petitioner was contending that the Government had taken a decision to grant full dearness allowance to all lecturers w.e.f. 01.08.1988 but that benefit had Civil Writ Petition No.14748 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - been denied to the petitioner. It was only to this representation that the impugned letter was issued by the Principal stating that he had never been appointed as a full time lecturer, but he had been a part time lecturer of Commerce and duly sanctioned as such by the government. The petitioner's contention was that the terms of employment did not set out anywhere that it was a part time employment and he could not be termed to be a part time employee. The contention on behalf of the Management as well as the State is that what was approved by the Government was only an appointment as a part time lecturer. The sanction from the Government was definitely necessary since the Management of the school was supported by the Government grants. Along with the written statement filed by the respondents, the letter of communication from the District Education Officer to the Principal dated 04.11.1989 has also been appended that categorizes the various classes of persons working in the school and putting the petitioner in the category of part time lecturer. The attempt was, therefore, to show that the approval from the Government was only for an appointment to the post of a part time lecturer for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the communication of the District Education Officer (DEO) approving the appointment of the petitioner only as a part time lecturer was never informed to the petitioner and only after he rejoined the school on 06.07.1988, the Management of the school was attempting to change the petitioner's status as a part time lecturer when he had been actually employed on full time basis. Civil Writ Petition No.14748 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - 3. From the exchange of communications and the documents filed by both parties, one thing become clear that at the time when the Management was giving an appointment to the petitioner, they had still not obtained the sanction from the Government but on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioner had been appointed as a lecturer on a scale of 700-1250 with usual allowances sanctioned by the Haryana Government. From the communication given by the DEO, it is seen that the Management had really not obtained a sanction for a full time lecturer in Commerce and the approval had been given by DEO only for a part time post. The petitioner ought to have known at the time when he was rejoining after leave that he was not treated as a full time lecturer. The petitioner himself must have also known that even the sanction from the Government had not treated him as a full time lecturer. The salary slips, which have been filed by the respondents, showed that initially when the petitioner was being paid his salary, he was shown as a full time lecturer and he was also receiving the same salary as a full time lecturers were receiving. When he rejoined the duty in July 1988, he has signed the register only as a part time lecturer and he had also drawn salary only on such basis. The petitioner ought to have been aggrieved immediately and if he had to wait till he made a representation in the year 1990 under Annexure P3 seeking for a full dearness allowance and describing himself as a full time lecturer, he was deliberately making a suppression of an important fact of which he knew fully well. There is nothing to suggest from records that the petitioner worked as a full time lecturer any time after he rejoined the duty on Civil Writ Petition No.14748 of 1990 (O&M) - 4 - 06.07.1988. If he had rejoined the duty on 06.07.1988 and was also drawing the salary and signing the register as a part time lecturer, he cannot turn around and seek for a mandamus two years later by means of a writ petition that he should be paid salary and granted the allowances similar to the lecturers on full time basis. The parity which he was claiming for, did not simply exist, for, he cannot treat himself on par with the full time lecturers in the school. The writ petition was not bona fide and wrought out on suppression of facts and even the prayer in the writ petition seeking for parity was clearly misleading, for, he knew that he was paid differently only because when he rejoined on 06.07.1988, he was allowed to rejoin only as a part time lecturer and it was only to the post of a part time lecturer that the Government had issued sanction to the Management. It was probably possible for the petitioner not to have joined for altered condition or challenged the appointment in the manner so made. The petitioner did not choose to do so but came with a prayer camouflaged to make it appear as though he was doing a work as a regular lecturer and that, therefore, he was also entitled to same scales of pay as regular lecturers are getting. The petitioner's prayer is rejected for the reasons referred to above. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.05.2011 sanjeev