CWP No. 11546 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11546 of 1993 Date of decision February 9, 2010 Punjab School Education Board ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner is an association that espouses the cause of the employees working with the Punjab School Education Board. The PSEB had taken a decision to grant special allowance to certain classes of persons that include Senior Assistants. By proceedings dated 10.6.1992 and 13.1.1993 a special allowance at the rate of Rs.80/- was admitted to the Senior Assistants of PSEB, like Senior Assistants in Punjab Civil Secretariat. This extension of benefit was sought to be impeded by proceedings of the Deputy Secretary Finance, Government of Punjab who on 3.3.1992 issued communication to the various departments of the government including Punjab Vidhan Sabha, Raj Bhawan and Punjab Public Service Commission extending the benefit of special allowance to senior Assistants, but at the same time had making a mention that special allowance would not be allowed to employees of Corporations, Universities, Boards etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that PSEB is an autonomous Board and if they had taken a decision to grant some benefit it CWP No. 11546 of 1993 2 could not be controlled by the decision of the government. The administrative control that the government exercise over the Education Board are circumscribed by Section 21 of the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969. To the extent to which the government could have a control of service regulations of the education board came for consideration in Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP No. 11983 of 2001 before a Division Bench of this Court. Adverting to Section 21 in the context of a decision by the Board to provide for regularization of certain employees which were at variance with the State Government's instructions, the Division Bench held as under:- “The fact that the PSEB is an autonomous/corporate body created by a legislative enactment separate and distinct from the State Government has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is, therefore, evident that a decision of the Government including the instruction dated 23.1.2001 cannot be binding upon the PSEB. It is not the case of the petitioners that the State Government had made any reference to the PSEB under Section 21 of the 1969 Act, nor is it the case of the petitioners that the PSEB had responded to the aforesaid reference, whereupon the State Government had issued a direction to the PSEB, under the aforesaid Section. Thus viewed, the instructions dated 23.1.2001 have certainly no nexus with Section 21 of the 1969 Act. In any case, in our view, the control of the State Government over the PSEB under Section 21 cannot extend to its administrative functioning, nor it relates to the conditions of service of the employees of the PSEB. The control vested in the State Government under Section 21 of the 1969 Act essentially relates to matters of policy confined to the activities for which the PSEB has been created. The aforesaid control would also be applicable, where the PSEB conducts itself in violation of the provisions of the Act under which it was created including the CWP No. 11546 of 1993 3 Regulations framed under the parent Act and nothing beyond that and certainly not conditions of recruitment of employees in the service of the PSEB which in our view is purely within the realm of administrative functioning.” The Bench has ruled that the control of the State Government could be in relation in matters relating to the policy which are confined to activities to which PSEB has been created and such control would also be available in case of violation of the provisions of the Act. The Board, the Hon'ble Division Bench held, being an autonomous board would be entitled to set their own service conditions. It is an authority for decision that if the Board had decided to provide for special allowance, it has liberty to enunciate its own service conditions for its employees. It has the authority to put through any benefit for its employees by virtue of autonomy provided under the Act. This could not be controlled by the State and the extent of which it was sought to be done through the notification dated 3.3.1992 would not be valid to fetter the right of the PSEB. 2. I uphold the contentions of the petitioner- Association that the decision of the Board to give special allowance by its decision dated 10.6.1992 and 13.1.1993 (Annexure P-7 and P-8) shall not be controlled by any decision to the contrary by the Government and particularly the proceedings challenged in the writ petition dated 3.3.1992. The petitioners shall be entitled to the restoration of the benefit sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE Februrary 9, 2010 archana