C.W.P. No. 4066 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4066 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: 9.5.2011 Pala Ram Sharma ..PETITIONER VS. State of Haryana & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. S.P. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr, Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. *** JUDGMENT: The petitioner was working as Lecturer in History on part time basis with respondent No.3. Through the instant petition he is seeking directions to the respondents not to terminate his services and grant him regular pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. It is his case that though he was appointed on part time basis, but is entitled to get regular pay scale of Lecturer since he is imparting more lectures than a regular Lecturer. The respondents admitted that the appointment of petitioner was on part time basis, but according to them the petitioner was being paid wages as per rules and he cannot be equated with a regularly appointed Lecturer, whose responsibility and nature of duties are altogether on different footing than part time lecturers. The petitioner cannot claim grant of regular pay scale only on the basis of work load, for which he is being paid remuneration. C.W.P. No. 4066 of 1991 2 This Court on 30.5.1991 while admitting the instant writ petition ordered to hear the same along with CWP No. 15482 of 1990. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.12.1991 while relying upon the decision rendered in CWP No. 10582 of 1991 titled as Satya Pal Shani Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and it has been observed as under:- “In view of this Court's decision rendered in Satya Pal Shani's case (supra) this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if, in the near future, some posts are made available and necessity for appointment arises, the petitioner shall be considered for appointment on priority basis.” It has brought to the notice that inadvertently the instant writ petition could not be listed with the aforesaid case and also that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with prior to the passing of interim directions by this Court. That apart the appointment of the petitioner against the sanctioned post on part time basis is not in dispute. It has come on record that no post of Lecturer in History on regular basis was sanctioned. As a part time Lecturer he obviously is not under the direct control of employer and his services are restricted to the hours he attended his duties. Only on the basis of work load, he cannot claim equity in the pay scale with regularly appointed Lecturers. Dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for being appointed on priority basis, if any necessity for appointment arises. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 09,2011 Jiten