L.P.A. No.6 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. L.P.A. No. 6 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.01.2008 State of Haryana and Another …Appellant through Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Versus Dr. Karan Singh Rathee and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspaper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Vijender Jain, Chief Justice. C.M. No. 36 of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 12 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 6 of 2008 Respondents were employed in privately added Colleges of Haryana. Colleges where they were employed were receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the Government against the sanctioned posts. All the L.P.A. No.6 of 2008 2 respondents had retired after 1.1.1996. Haryana Government in consonance with Scheme/Policy formulated by University Grant Commission revised pay-scales of Lecturers/staff employed in Government and private colleges. In pursuance of the Scheme/Policy of University Grant Commission maximum amount of gratuity to be paid to the employees in the Colleges was also enhanced and w.e.f. 1.1.1996 it was decided that employees will be entitled to gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/-. Respondents preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 3732 of 2001 making out a grievance that similarly situated teaching staff in Government Colleges and in aided Schools in Haryana have been granted benefit of enhanced gratuity w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and whereas qua them this benefit has been extended w.e.f. 11.5.1998. They have challenged disparity in determining the date for giving benefit of gratuity. Furthermore employees of privately aided Colleges who retired after 11.5.1998 have also availed benefit of enhanced gratuity except for employees who retired in between 1.1.1996 to 11.5.1998. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement dated 20.8.2007 held that the equivalence of gratuity payable to lecturers in Government Colleges and the privately managed Government Aided Institutions was upheld by this Court in Jagdev Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana and Others Civil Writ Petition No. 16992 of 1997 and S.L.P. preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgement was dismissed by Hon’ble the Apex Court on 16.11.1998. Picking up thread from this, that once equivalence of benefit of gratuity between Government College employees and employees of privately managed Government L.P.A. No.6 of 2008 3 Aided Colleges has been upheld, making out a distinction regarding the date from which this benefit is to be extended was held bad by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement. As the appellant failed to substantiate distinction on point of date for granting benefit of enhanced gratuity, the learned Single Judge has held that variations of date on which equivalence stood determined has to be based on a rationale. Finding no reason to justify the variation, the writ petition was allowed. In the present appeal, it has been contended by Mr. B.S. Rana, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, that this Court in K.C.Thakur v. State of Haryana 2003 (3) S.C.T. 863 (P&H) held that fixation of the cut off date when benefit is to be extended cannot be held to be arbitrary merely because some of the employees have been covered and others have not been covered. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the judgement cited. The judgement cited cannot apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, it was extension of benefit of pension to the employees of privately aided Colleges and their grievance was against the cut off date inter-se employees of private aided colleges, whereas in the present case, grievance is that employees of Government Colleges and privately aided Colleges and privately aided Schools cannot be dealt with separately. The learned Single Judge relied upon the following observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 2003:- L.P.A. No.6 of 2008 4 “The service conditions of the employees of the aided institutions are sought to be improved and brought at par with those in Government educational institutions to maintain educational standards”. We find no infirmity with the judgement of learned Single Judge and the same is upheld and the present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Vijender Jain) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 21, 2008 “DK”