-1- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: May 27, 2008. Meenakshi Uppal ... Petitioner VERSUS Society for Promotion of Information Technology in Chandigarh (S.P.I.C) through its Chairman and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Khetarpal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Mrs. Meenakshi Uppal (petitioner) is working in the Society for Promotion of Information Technology in Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent-Society') since 2001 on a consolidated salary, increased from time to time, after having been selected for the post of Counsellor in response to an -2- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. advertisement issued by the respondent-Society. When she was terminated from this post in the year 2004 and one Ms. Kanchan Chhabra was given appointment as Counsellor, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.8735 of 2004 in this Court challenging the appointment of Ms.Kanchan Chhabra (respondent No.2 in that writ petition), which was allowed on August 11, 2005 by passing the following order:- “ In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No.2 in place of the petitioner on the post of Counsellor is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service on the post of Counsellor forthwith with all consequential benefits. The continuance of the petitioner in service is, of course, subject to the unavailability of a regularly selected Counsellor. In case the post of Counsellor is subsequently advertised for requirement by open competition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to compete in the selection process. In case of non-selection of the petitioner, she will have to make way for the regularly selected employee. The respondent-Society is also at liberty to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner including termination of service -3- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. No costs. “ The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the respondent-Society has again issued advertisement dated December 28, 2005 (Annexure P-14) inviting applications for the post of Counsellor (Female) in the respondent-Society, which, according to her, is in violation of the letter and spirit of the order of this Court dated August 11,2005, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.8735 of 2004, filed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she has a right to continue on the post of Counsellor till her services are terminated by any misconduct or till the post is changed to permanent post. No decision has been taken by the respondent- Society to convert contract establishment into permanent establishment. In the written statement filed by the respondent- Society, it has been pleaded that in pursuance of the order dated August 11, 2005, passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8735 of 2004, the respondent-Society is not debarred from advertising the post and appointing any candidate on the post of Counsellor on regular basis by way of open competition. Since the petitioner is working as Counsellor in the respondent- Society on the basis of contractual agreement, she has no right to challenge the internal decisions of the respondent-Society. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner has approached -4- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. this Court by way of the instant writ petition in mere anticipation that she would be removed from the existing contractual employment because of the advertisement dated December 28, 2005. It is further case of the respondent-Society that the advertisement dated December 28, 2005 is not intended to violate the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8735 of 2004. In fact, the advertisement for the post of Counsellor was published with an intent to create more post or to have more Counsellors for the other additional projects. However, at the same time, it has also been mentioned in the written statement that the said advertisement (Annexure P-14) has become infructuous by the fact that no action pursuant to publication thereof has been taken by the respondent-Society. In the replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent-Society, it has been stated that the respondent-Society has issued letter dated January 07, 2008 (Annexure P-18) to the petitioner offering her fresh contractual appointment, which is lower in rank and salary than her juniors who have been offered and given higher rank and salary. Vide letter (Annexure P-18), the petitioner has been offered fresh contractual appointment to the post of H.R. Executive in the respondent-Society initially for a period of one year on a consolidated fixed salary of Rs.9,000/- per month with effect from December 01, 2007 plus conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs.800/-, Books Allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- and loyalty incentive at the rate of Rs.500/- per month whereas vide letter -5- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. dated December, 2007, issued by the respondent-Society to Ms.Nidhi Vashisht, who is junior to the petitioner, she has been offered the post of Career Advisor with effect from December 01, 2007 at a salary of Rs.13,400/- (approximately), which is higher than that of the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner is Post Graduate and had joined the respondent-Society in the year 2001 as Counsellor in open competition and Ms.Nidhi Vashishat is Graduate and joined the respondent-Society on June 23, 2004 as Front Office Executive, which is lower than the petitioner's post i.e Counsellor. Ms.Nidhi Vashisht was thereafter promoted to the post of Counsellor on August 10, 2005 without following proper procedure. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, we do not find any ground to uphold the plea of the petitioner that the advertisement dated December 28, 2005 (Annexure P-14) has been issued in violation of the order of this Court dated August 11, 2005, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.8735 of 2004. In the said order, operative part of which has been reproduced above, it has been made clear that the petitioner will continue in service of the respondent-Society as a Counsellor on contract basis till the appointment of a regularly selected Counsellor. It has further been stated in the said order that in case the respondent-Society chooses to appoint Counsellor by way of open competition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to compete in the selection process. In case of non-selection of the petitioner, she -6- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. will have to make way for the regularly selected employee. Although in the advertisement December 28, 2005, (Annexure P-14), it has not been mentioned whether the appointment of Counsellor (Female) is to be made on regular or contractual basis, but if the respondent-Society fills up the post on regular basis, no fault can be found with the advertisement. However, in the written statement it has been stated that no action in pursuance of the advertisement dated December 28, 2005, has been taken by the respondent-Society and it, in a way, has become infructuous as the petitioner is working on the post of Counsellor since 2001 on contractual basis. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no parity is being maintained by the respondent- Society in the matter of grant of pay scales to its employees is concerned, it may be stated here that neither we can function as experts to fix pay scales for various categories of posts in the respondent-Society nor we would like to interfere in such matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. It appears that the entire confusion in the matter of grant of pay scales to the employees of the respondent-Society has been created because of non-existence of Rules on the subject. No Rules have been framed by the respondent-Society governing the service conditions and pay scales of its employees. Regarding the plea of the petitioner that she is being discriminated and is paid less salary than her junior Ms.Nidhi Vashist, it has been stated in the affidavit dated May 01, 2008, -7- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. filed by Manjit Brar, Chief Executive Officer of the respondent- Society that the petitioner had been offered the post of H.R. Executive with increased salary of Rs.10,900/- per month as compared to her existing salary of Rs.8610/- per month, which she declined. It has been further stated in this affidavit that Ms.Nidhi Vashist is handling more responsibilities as she is Post Graduate Diploma Holder in Computer Application and is in a better position to perform the duties of Carrier Advisor, Course Co- ordinator and Front Office Executive. The respondent-Society is conducting Course related to Computer Education for the students apart from developing software etc. Ms. Nidhi Vashisht is handling all the visitors, students and Instructors. She is also handling all jobs relating to Course Management, making presentations and enrolling students. Vide order dated April 01, 2008, passed by this Court, when learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file reply /affidavit, it was directed that the respondent-Society shall disclose the pre re-organiazation posts, incumbents and the consolidated salary paid to the employees as well as the post re- organization posts, incumbents and salary paid. In response to this order, documents Annexures R-6 to R-8 have been placed on record along with the affidavit of Manjit Brar, Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-Society. A perusal of Annexures R-6 to P-8, which are List of Administrative Staff Executives of the respondent-Society, their Pre Administrative Restructuring and Post Administrative Restructuring, Pay Scales and Attendance Record of -8- Civil Writ Petition No.4383 of 2006. the petitioner, shows that the administrative set-up of the respondent-Society is not working on an appreciable pattern and it is of utmost importance that the respondent-Society frames proper Rules to govern the service conditions and pay scales of its employees. It has become imperative for the respondent-Society to frame proper Rules / Policy keeping in view the principle of parity for its employees. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that it will be in the interest of proper administration of the respondent-Society that proper Rules governing the Appointments, Service Conditions and Pay Scales of the employees of the respondent-Society are framed expeditiously so that there is no resentment in the employees because lack of proper Rules will always lead to uncongenial atmosphere in the administration. Needless to say, after framing of the proper Rules, no employee will be in a position to level allegation against the respondent-Society that it is accommodating favourable persons for appointments on contractual basis in place of other persons who are also rendering service on contractual agreement. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE May 27, 2008. ak