IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petitions 2386 of 2008 and 2514 of 2008. Judgment Reserved on: 24.08.2010 Date of decision: 19.11.2010 1. CWP No.2386 of 2008. Rajesh Kumar Walia … … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents 2. CWP No.2514 of 2008. Ms.Pawan Kalsi … … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. CWP No.2386 of 2008. For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. CWP No.2514 of 2008. For the Petitioner: M/s.Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner(s) challenges the action of respondent No.2 in withdrawing the enhanced pay granted to the petitioner by an order dated 1.4.2008 Annexure P-3. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 2. The case as pleaded by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in Commerce in D.A.V. College, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, by the then Managing Committee on 28.7.1997. He joined his duties and thereafter he continued in the employment of erstwhile Committee of the College till 10.3.2004, when some advertisement of regular Lecturers was issued, but the petitioner was not allowed to continue in service. Thereafter, Civil Writ Petition No.351 of 2004, titled: Rajesh Kumar Walia vs. The Managing Committee was filed by the petitioner, which was partly allowed by judgment dated 6.7.2005, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court. The submission of the respondent-College that the petitioner was engaged as a stop gap arrangement and on contractual basis, as also they had not passed NET etc. was not accepted. It was directed that the petitioner be continued in service. It is further pleaded that the management of the College was subsequently taken over by the State of Himachal Pradesh and the services of some Lecturers have been taken over by the State and they have been appointed as lectures in College/School cadre. 3. It seems that the College is running some Self-financing Courses in the Post Graduate College, Daulatpur Chowk, Una and the petitioner has been assigned duties for teaching this subject. The grievance of the petitioner is that the enhancement in the pay scales was ordered vide Annexure P-3 by which a 3 meeting of the Committee constituted for regularization/enhancement of the salary of the staff working under Self-financing Science & Commerce Streams was held on 1.4.2008 and it had been decided that the pay scales be increased. Accordingly, Office Order, Annexure P-4, dated 1.4.2008 was issued, pursuant to the decision which was taken on Ist April, 2008 regarding enhancement of pay scales etc. The petitioner submits that according to Annexure P-4 he did not possess the requisite qualifications and was, therefore, placed in the pay scale of Rs.6400 – 10325. Abruptly, the pay scale was withdrawn and he was handed over consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- only and when he brought this to the notice of the Authorities by making a note on the acquaintance roll, he was issued a show cause notice Annexure P-6 which reads:- “Explain within two days why the action should not be taken against you for defacing the Govt. document (acquittance roll).” 4. Reply Annexure P-7 was submitted by the petitioner, but no action has been taken by the respondents. In a nutshell, the case pleaded by the petitioner is one of the violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. The petition is resisted on a number of grounds by the College in which one of the preliminary objections taken is with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition and the second that the Principal 4 had on his own increased the pay scales without any authority. It is stated that a Committee has been constituted to submit its recommendations about the enhancement of salary on uniform basis, but till date no recommendation has been received. These averments have been denied by way of rejoinder to the writ petition, reiterating what has been stated in it and bringing some new facts to the notice of the respondents. 6. It is undisputed before me that the courses, which are run by the respondents, are affiliated with the Himachal Pradesh University. According to the Hand Book Volume-II, (The First ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973) as amended, affiliation and recognition of Colleges and Institution(s) are required to pay the same pay scales for the teachers as in force from time to time for Government colleges. Chapter- XXXVIII deals with the Affiliation and Appendix `A’ deals with the Rules relating to the Teachers of Non- Government Affiliated Colleges. Rule-7 provides:- “7. Pay Scales – An affiliated non- Government college or institution shall adopt the same pay scales for its teachers as in force from time to time for the teachers in Government colleges of the State. No teacher shall be paid less than the minimum of the pay scale for the post to which he is appointed.” 7. Turning to the first aspect, I find that to maintain its affiliation, the college must follow the 5 statutes and ordinances of the University and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the college is outside the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, more especially, when what the petitioner seeks would infact be the implementation of the statutes of respondent No.3. Prior to this also, this Court has, between some parties, entertained and disposed of the writ petition Annexure P-1. 8. Adverting to the second aspect, I do find it a bit strange that vide Annexure P-6 the petitioner has been charged for defacing government property. If the college is not controlled by the government where is the question of defacing government document (acquaintance roll)? However, the grievance of the petitioner simply put is that he has been condemned unheard in violation of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the petitioner be given a chance of hearing to represent his case and to show that the pay scales were sanctioned in accordance with rule 7 supra as noticed and that its withdrawal is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Since valuable rights of the petitioner have been deprived, the scale granted to him once cannot be withdrawn unilaterally. I am not adjudicating upon the fact whether the scale could infact had been granted by the college or not. All these questions will be open for decision by respondent No.2. Since respondents No.1 and 3 also exercise 6 pervasive control over the running of the college, it would be in the fitness of things that respondent No.3 also considers the case of the petitioner herein and to ensure that pay scales to the teachers are paid in consonance with the ordinances of the University failing which appropriate action in accordance with law be initiated against respondent No.2. This writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. CWP No.2514 of 2008. This writ petitioner shall also abide by the decision passed in CWP No.2386 of 2008, titled: Rajesh Kumar Walia vs. State of H.P. & Others as the case pleaded by the petitioner is on facts in pari materia in the case of Rajesh Kumar supra. Needless to say that before taking any action the petitioner(s) in both the writ petitions shall be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter and making representation(s) with such documents as may be deemed necessary for the just adjudication of their claims. I have not pronounced on the merits of the case of the respective parties. November 19, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.