CWP No. 2788 of 2000. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2788 of 2000. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2011. State of Punjab & Anr. Petitioners through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Versus The Presiding Officer, State School Tribunal, Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The State of Punjab through its Education Department has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 9th September, 1998 [Annexure P-1] passed by the State School Tribunal, Punjab to the extent it holds the State of Punjab responsible for payment of 95% of the monetary benefits to which respondent No. 2 has been held entitled vide the said order. [2]. For the purposes of resolving the issue involved in this case, suffice it to mention that Shri Pyare Lal S.S.N.Arya High School, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda is a Government Aided Privately Managed School and it receives 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. Respondent No.2 joined the afore-stated school as SS Master on 26.07.1968 and continued to serve till he was promoted as Head Master of the said school on 19.09.1984. CWP No. 2788 of 2000. ::-2-:: Respondent No. 2 was thereafter appointed on regular basis as Head Master against the post sanctioned under the grant-in-aid scheme on 20.02.1990 and his appointment was duly approved by the DPI [Schools], Punjab, on 26.07.1990. It appears that soon thereafter the management of the school terminated the services of the petitioner on 26.12.1990 without prior approval of the Education Department. The order terminating his service as Head Master was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the State School Tribunal who vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 set aside the said order and has ordered the re-instatement of respondent No. 2 with full arrears of pay and increments etc. along with interest @12% per annum to be paid within two months of the passing of the said order. The arrears were to be shared between the Management and the State Government in the normal ratio. [3]. This Court can not refrain from observing that the unusual order passed by the State School Tribunal runs into almost 80 pages and is full of irrelevant and mis-directed issues. Since the State of Punjab has impugned the same on a limited ground, namely, to the extent it its liability on the State exchequer, it is not necessary to go into the propriety or otherwise legality of the impugned order. [4]. Adverting to the issue raised here-in-above, namely, the State Government's responsibility to pay the consequential arrears of pay, increments and interest etc., the Tribunal ought to have kept in mind that the order terminating services of respondent No. 2 was passed by the Management of the school without prior approval of the Education Department nor the Education Department, Punjab was ever apprised of any penal action taken against respondent No. CWP No. 2788 of 2000. ::-3-:: 2. How could the State of Punjab or its authorities be held responsible for an illegal action when not even part of it is attributable to them directly or indirectly? The Tribunal is unfortunately and conspicuously silent and has bye-passed this very conveniently. [5]. The 95% grant-in-aid which is paid out of the Consolidation Fund of the State is for achieving laudable object of imparting education through the privately managed institutions as it being one of the salutary goals assigned to the State under Chapter IV of the Constitution [the Directive Principles]. Each and every penny of the grant-in-aid has to be spent only and only to achieve the said object and can not be allowed to be plundered, mis-appropriated or misused by a group of private individuals constituting the Management of a school. [6]. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. V Shri K.K.Sharma & Ors., LPA No. 411 of 1989 decided on 19.01.1998 [Annexure P-2] dealt with some-what similar situation and categorically ruled that:- “A perusal of the order under challenge shows that the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason for holding the State Government liable to pay the arrears of salary to the writ petitioner. The order also does not contain any reason as to why the State Government and its functionaries should be held responsible for payment of arrears inspite of the circular No. 17/10-78-Grants-I dated 23.8.1978 by which the Government had made it clear that it will not be responsible for the payment of salary or subsistence allowance for the suspension period in respect of the employee suspended by the Managing Committee. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge. CWP No. 2788 of 2000. ::-4-:: For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to the State to release the grant-in-aid to the management of the school is set aside. However, the respondents no. 3 and 4 are directed to pay to the writ petitioner, the amount of arrears of salary and also undertake the fixation of his pay within a period of four months of the submission of the certified copy of this order”. [7]. Following the dictum in K.K.Sharma's case [supra], I allow this writ petition and modify the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 passed by the State School Tribunal and hold that all the consequential benefits flowing from the said order shall be recoverable by respondent No. 2 from the Management of the school and no liability shall be directly or indirectly fastened on the Education Department, Punjab/State of Punjab. [8]. Since respondent No. 2 is said to have attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the Education Department shall consider his claim for pension or other retiral dues within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. If respondent No. 2 is found entitled to, the retiral benefits shall be released to the extent of the State's liability only. However, if the State Government is of the view that the liability incurred by it towards retiral dues of respondent No. 2 is also recoverable, partly or wholly, from the Management, liberty is granted to it that after making the payment to respondent No. 2, it shall be entitled to adjust the said amount against the grant-in-aid payable to SSN Arya High School, Raman Mandi though such an order shall be passed after following the due procedure of law. CWP No. 2788 of 2000. ::-5-:: [9]. Disposed of. Dasti. March 23, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE