CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4570 of 2008 Date of Decision: 08.07.2010 **** Hawaldar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P8) passed by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana, whereby, his claim for pensionary benefits has been turned down. (2). The petitioner on the strength of the academic qualification of MA in Hindi, MA in Sanskrit, Acharya Sarv Darshan along with Shiksha Shastri which is equivalent to OT was appointed as ‘Hindi Teacher’ in DG Khan Senior Secondary School, Palwal vide appointment letter dated 12.12.1983. As per the terms and conditions contained in his CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 2 – appointment letter dated 10.12.1983 (Annexure P11), the petitioner remained on probation for a period of one year which clearly suggests his appointment against a regular vacant post. This fact is further strengthened by Condition No.2 of his appointment letter which says that in the event of abolition of post, his services were liable to be terminated. (3). The petitioner continued to serve the school as ‘Hindi Teacher’ till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2008. (4). The school, namely, DG Khan Senior Secondary School, Palwal is a Government-Aided Private school and receives 95% Grant-in-Aid from the State Government. The teachers/employees of the Government-aided Schools in Haryana are entitled to pension and other retrial dues like their counterparts in the Government service. (5). It appears that when the petitioner was nearing retirement he started representing the authorities to treat him at par with his colleagues and sent his case for the grant of pension and other retrial dues on retirement. His claim has been turned down by the State Government vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P8) after observing that CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 3 – the petitioner as was appointed Hindi Teacher against the vacant post of JBT teacher by the school Management………” It is further maintained that since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of JBT teacher his appointment could not be approved by the Department. It is also averred that the “petitioner was working as Hindi Teacher against unsanctioned posts; as such his salary was neither assessed nor released by the Department….” (6). Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the documents on record. (8). In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apposite to reproduce the comments sent by the Management of the School vide its memo dated 12.03.1999 (Annexure P1) to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, relevant extracts read as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “Sub: For releasing Grant of Hindi Teacher, Sh Hawaldar Singh. 1. Sh. Hawaldar Singh was appointed as Hindi Teacher in this school in the pay scale of Rs.480- 760. Sh. Singh joined duties as Hindi Teacher on CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 4 – 12.12.1983, he working in this school since that day. 2. Record of the school shows that in reply to the advertisement on the basis of which Sh. Singh was selected no candidate having OT Prabhakar qualification was available, therefore he was appointed on the said post. His qualifications are as given below:- (A) M.A. Hindi (B) M.A. Sanskrit (C) Acharya Sarvdarshan (D) Shiksha Shastri Professional Qualification is – “Shiksha Shastri” which is treated as equivalent to OT…..” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (9). The District Education Officer, Faridabad also sent his following comments to the Director Secondary Education, Haryana vide Memo dated 30.06.2000 (Annexure P4) :- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “1. Sh. Hawaldar Singh was appointed on dated 12-12-83 as Hindi Teacher and was getting grant upto dated 31-3-89. 2. The post on which Sh. Hawaldar Singh was appointed is lying vacant till date. 3. Sh. Hawaldar Singh is Teaching Hindi even now.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 5 – (10). Besides this the petitioner has placed on record the appointment letter dated 10.12.1983 (Annexure P11) which leaves no room to doubt that he was appointed as a ‘Hindi Teacher’ only against the vacant post. (11). It is stated that the pay scales admissible to the JBT and Hindi Teacher were same. Assuming that after his appointment as ‘Hindi Teacher’, the petitioner was adjusted against the post of JBT, for the purposes of Grant-in-Aid, should not work to his disadvantage for the obvious reason that the petitioner had no access to the internal arrangement made by the management with the Education Department in that regard. The fact of the matter that the petitioner was possessing more than the requisite qualification for the post of ‘Hindi Teacher’ and he devotedly served the institution till his retirement on 31.05.2008 with a spotless service career. The reasons assigned by the Commissioner and Director General, Education Department in the so-called ‘speaking order’ are directly in conflict with the information(s) sent by the District Education Officer, Faridabad vide memo dated 31.06.2000 (Annexure P4). CWP No.4570 of 2008.doc - 6 – (12). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P8) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-verify the facts and if it is found that the petitioner has continuously worked as ‘Hindi Teacher’ against a vacant post whether or not included in Grant-in-Aid Scheme, to release the retrial dues within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (13). Ordered accordingly. (14). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.07.2010 vishal shonkar