IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.9839 of 2003 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Mohinder Singh Samra. ....... Petitioner through Ms.Vanita Sapra, Advocate. Versus Shromani Guirdwara Parbandhak Committee. ....... Respondent through Ms.Gurveen H.Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 24.4.2003 (Annexure P10) passed by the Secretary of the respondent, which is a statutory body created under the Sikh Gurdwara Act,1925. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for directing the respondent to grant the petitioner the C.B.S.E. grade of pay of Principal in terms of the his employment. The petitioner was employed as Principal by the respondent by virtue of Annexure P1. He was to perform his duties on a consolidated C.W.P.No.9839 of 2003 -2- .... salary of Rs.9000/- in Baba Budha Public School, Bir Saheb, Amritsar which is being run by the respondent and was to remain on probation for a period of two years. The grievance of the petitioner is that according to the terms of the appointment letter dated 16.9.1998 which is on record as Annexure P1, he was entitled to the grade of pay as admissible to the similarly situated employees after a period of two years, but he has not been granted that benefit. Reliance has been placed on Clause 5 of the appointment letter for this assertion, which is extracted below:- “5. You shall be paid the appointment and grade in accordance with C.B.S.E.Rules after two years or if the school gets affiliated to C.B.S.E. Then it shall be paid immediately.” The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent failed to grant the C.B.S.E. grade despite several representations including a legal notice and continued to extract work from him as a Principal on the consolidated salary of Rs.9000/-. He was then forced to file C.W.P.No.1685 of 2003 which was disposed of on 17.1.2003 with a direction to the respondent to decide his claim by passing a speaking order within three months. It was also directed that in case the petitioner was found entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of the claim raised by him, the same shall be released within a further period of one month. Thereafter, order Annexure P10 was passed by the Secretary of the respondent rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and while doing so, essentially took up a plea that the school in question was not affiliated with the C.B.S.E. and was not getting any grant- C.W.P.No.9839 of 2003 -3- .... in-aid and that his work & conduct was not satisfactory which compelled the authorities to extend his period of probation. In the written statement, the respondent justified order Annexure P10 and pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of C.B.S.E.grade. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 5 of appointment letter, Annexure P1, which has been reproduced above, to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, whereas learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the school did not get affiliation from the C.B.S.E., there was no occasion to grant the benefit of grade as claimed by him. I have considered the matter after hearing the counsel for the parties. It is a settled principle of law that the terms of appointment as given out to an employee at the time of his employment are the part and parcel of the terms of appointment and any adverse deviation therefrom to the detriment of such employee is impermissible. In the instant case, Clause 5 of appointment letter, Annexure P1, vide which the petitioner was appointed as Principal, is abundantly clear. It contemplates the grant of C.B.S.E.grade as per rules to the petitioner after completion of two years service. It further stipulated that in the event of the affiliation being granted to the school by the C.B.S.E., then such grade was to be made admissible to him immediately. A plain reading of this clause makes it more than clear that the grant of C.B.S.E.grade was C.W.P.No.9839 of 2003 -4- .... always contemplated by the respondent while offering appointment to the petitioner,but it was to be given after two years and in the eventuality of the affiliation granted to the school by the C.B.S.E., then such grade was to materialise immediately. Therefore, Annexure P10 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The tone and tenor of Annexure P10 also refers to an oblique attempt of the respondent to state that the benefit has been denied to the petitioner because his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory. However, even if this plea is to be considered, the same is without any merit. The petitioner was permitted to work till the time he superannuated from service and to say that his work and conduct was not satisfactory to deny him this benefit would not stand the test of legal scrutiny. Looking at it from any angle, the petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit which was promised by the respondent at the time of his appointment. Consequently, the instant writ petition is accepted, the impugned order Annexure P10 is set aside and the respondent is directed to forthwith grant the petitioner the grade of pay as admissible under the C.B.S.E. Rules. The needful shall be done expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from today and the payment of the dues shall be made to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date such benefit was admissible to him till realisation. July 05,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge