CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 24.7.2009 1.CWP No.3443 of 2007 Kanwaljeet Kaur w/o Gurpreet Singh ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Education Department Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi and others …Respondents 2.CWP No.623 of 2007 Raman Kumar ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Education Department Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi and others …Respondents 3.CWP No.12598 of 2007 Kuldeep Rai s/o Shri Mansa Ram ..Petitioner CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 2 VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents 4.CWP No.12274 of 2007 Vijay Kumar s/o Baldev Raj ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents 5.CWP No.9870 of 2007 Surjit Singh & Others ..Petitioners VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents 6.CWP No.7830 of 2007 Mohan Lal ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents 7.CWP No.12577 of 2007 Kulwinder Kaur ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents 8.CWP No.12153 of 2007 Balkar Singh and another CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 3 ..Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Mr.G.P.Vashist, Advocates for the petitioner(s) Mr.Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for UOI Mrs.Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Central Standing Counsel for Union of India Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate for UOI in CWP Nos.7830/07 & 9870/07 Mr.P.C.Goyal, AAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3443 of 2007, 623 of 2007,12598 of 2007, 12274 of 2007, 9870 of 2007, 12577 of 2007, 7830 of 2007 and 12153 of 2007, as these petitions involve similar questions of law and facts. CWP NOS.3443,7830, 9870, 12577, 12274 & 12153 of 2007 Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 4 introduced a Community Polytechnic Scheme for all the States. The objective of the Scheme was to impart Community Polytechnic training. With a view to implement the aforesaid Scheme, applications were invited vide advertisement notice published in Daily Ajit dated 5.5.2002 for the following posts:- S.No Name of Vacancy No. Fixed Salary Eligibility 1. 2. 3. Supervisor Clerk-cum-Typist Instructor (A) to (G) 01 01 01 All 2500 Rs. PM 1500-2000 Rs. 1500-2000 Rs. Diploma in any Branch with experience +2 and Typing (1)Cutting tailoring (B) Electrician (C ) Plastic Product Making (D) Mechanist (E) Typing and shorthand, Eligibility I.T.I., pass (F) Computer Operator: Eligibility: +2 and 6 months training (G) Pathology Lab., Eligibility +2 and Diploma in Lab Technology.” Petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions (except CWP No.12274 of 2007) applied for the posts of Instructors in various trades referred to in the advertisement in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2000 whereas the petitioner-Vijay Kumar in CWP No.12274/2007 seems to have applied for the post of Assistant Project Officer. It is admitted case of the petitioner-Vijay Kumar that he was not qualified and he was given the emoluments of the post of Instructors. Even though the pay scale was notified in the advertisement on selection, these petitioners were given the consolidated sum of Rs.1980/- per month on their selection as is evident from appointment letter (Annexure P-6 in CWP No.3443/2007) whereby petitioner-Kanwaljeet Kaur was appointed. One Anu Lamba was also appointed as Instructor alongwith the petitioners. The said Anu Lamba filed CWP No.11275 of CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 5 1998 claiming minimum of the pay scale and also the regularization on the basis of the long engagement. This writ petition came to be allowed vide judgment dated 16.3.2001 by a Division Bench of this Court with the following directions:- “In view of the admitted position, the Court had directed the respondents to consider the matter and decide it. After prolonged efforts, they had only agreed to increase the wages from Rs.2000/- to Rs.2400/- per month. Their action is indicative of a totally unreasonable attitude. In such a situation, we cannot be helpless spectators and deny the petitioner her legitimate due. It is true that fixation of pay etc is normally the prerogative of the employer. But in a case where the employer chooses to be unreasonable and stubborn, the Court has to intervene especially in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. Thus, we have considered the matter. We feel constrained to direct that the petitioner shall be paid at the minimum rate of Rs.5000/- per month w.e.f. August 1, 1998. She had approached the Court in July, 1998. This brings us to the second question regarding the regularization of her services. Admittedly, the post has continued to exist for a long time. The Scheme itself was promulgated in the year 1979. The petitioner has been in position since the year 1992. The post is still needed. In this situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that the petitioner's case for regularization on the post held by her CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 6 shall be considered within three months. The respondents shall fix an appropriate scale of pay and place her in that scale. The emoluments shall not be below Rs.5500/- per month as mentioned above. Mr.V.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent-Union of India points out that the posts are sanctioned under a Scheme. Therefore, the benefit of regularization should not be given. However, on being asked, the counsel has admitted that the number of Community Polytechnics was initially fixed at 35. It has now risen to about 400. This only proves the continuing need for the Community Polytechnics and the personnel to man the posts. In this situation, it is only fair that the respondents create a regular cadre and place them in a regular service. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The petitioner shall also be entitled to her costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/-.” The aforesaid judgment came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, on consideration of the entire matter and in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, vide its judgment reported as Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and another vs. Anu Lamba and others (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 161 set aside the Division Bench judgment of this Court to the extent it directed regularization of the petitioner therein, but maintained the rest of the directions relating to the grant of the minimum emoluments of Rs.5500/- CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 7 per month. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the said Anu Lamba has been paid emoluments of Rs.5500/- per month from the date of the filing of the writ petition till she worked under the Scheme. The petitioners were admittedly engaged as Instructors and were paid consolidated amount of Rs.1980/- per month. They are also claiming similar treatment as given to Anu Lamba on the basis of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While opposing the contention of the petitioners, Union of India places reliance upon another order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2838 of 2008 (Union of India and others vs. Vikas). The aforesaid Civil Appeal was directed against another Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.8583 of 2005 decided on 29.9.2006. In the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court again followed the judgment passed in Anu Lamba's case (supra) and directed the payment of Rs.5500/- per month to the petitioners therein. Union of India preferred SLP against the aforesaid judgment which came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No.2838 of 2008 and was decided on 15.4.2008 with the following observations:- “Despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of the respondents(s). Leave granted. These matters appear to be covered by a decision of this Court in Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic & Anr. vs. Anu Lamba and Ors., (2006 (7) SCC 161). In view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 8 which is set aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly.” Based upon the aforesaid observations, it is contended on behalf of the Union of India that the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas vs. Union of India has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the aforesaid Civil Appeal in view of the judgment passed in Anu Lamba and others (2006) 7 SCC 161, though it is mentioned that the judgment impugned has been set aside in appeal. It appears that the appellants in the aforesaid case did not represent the true facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Be that as it may. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically and in unambiguous term applied the judgment of Anu Lamba (supra). The intention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court seems to be clear and unequivocal. The fact remains that Anu Lamba's judgment which is a precedent being a detailed judgment has been reiterated in the aforesaid judgment and creates a binding precedent upon this Court. I have no hesitation in following the dictum of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anu Lamba's case (supra) being a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, CWP NOS.3443,7830, 9870, 12577, 12274 and 12153 of 2007 are disposed of in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and another vs. Anu Lamba and others (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 161. CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 9 The petitioners in these petitions shall also be entitled to an amount of Rs.5500/- per month as minimum emoluments which have been fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. CWP Nos.623 and 12598 of 2007 The petitioners in these two petitions were engaged as Assistant Project Officers. They were granted the consolidated amount of Rs.3500/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the posts of Assistant Project Officers were higher in status than the post of Instructors and thus these petitioners are entitled to more than Rs.5500/- per month as has been paid to Anu Lamba (supra). There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions. This post was admittedly higher in status than the post of Instructors. The consolidated salary of the petitioners was Rs.3500/- p.m. i.e. more than the Instructors. These petitioners are entitled to be paid Rs.7000/- per month as proportionate enhancement from the emoluments of Instructors. When the judgment in Anu Lamba (supra) came, petitioners therein were working and they were granted the benefit of the minimum amount from the date of filing of the writ petition in 2007. It is admitted case of the parties that the Scheme whereunder the petitioners in all above mentioned writ petitions were engaged was withdrawn w.e.f. 31.7.2007 and simultaneously, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with. In view of the above circumstances, the benefit of the enhanced amount/minimum wages of Rs.5500/- and Rs.7000/- respectively shall be CWP NO.3443 OF 2007 etc. 10 available to the petitioners for a period of three years preceding the date when their services were dispensed with. Let the amount be worked out and paid to these petitioners within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Disposed of. A copy of this judgment be placed on record on each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.7.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES