CWP No.19943 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19943 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.08.2010 **** M.L. Aggarwal & Others . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondent **** 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. GP Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. TPS Tung, Advocate for respondents No.3 &4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No. 19943, 19975, 20216, 20233, 20238 & 20295 of 2009 as common issues are involved in these cases. Since the relief sought in these cases is predominantly against the State of Punjab and its authorities only, the service of other respondents is dispensed with, especially for the reason that the issues involved are no longer res integra. For brevity the facts are being extracted from CWP No.19943 of 2009. (2). The petitioners are working as Lecturers in different subjects with respondent No.3 – College. The respondent No.3-College is a Government-Aided CWP No.19943 of 2009.doc - 2 – Privately-Managed College and it receives 95% Grant- in-Aid from the State of Punjab. The posts being held by the petitioners are also duly sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. It is not in dispute that on acceptance of the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission as approved by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India, the State of Punjab also revised the pay-scales of College/University Teachers w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide Govt. Notifications dated 12.03.1999 and 24.03.1999. The petitioners were also granted the revised pay-scale(s) in terms of the aforesaid Notification but consequential arrears of revised pay- scale, DA, CPF, House Rent Allowance and Medical Allowance etc. were not paid to them due to non- release of the Grant-in-Aid by the State Government even though 80% of such arrears were to be paid by the Government of India/State of Punjab. They have accordingly approached this Court seeking a direction to the State of Punjab and its authorities to release the adequate grant and/or pay arrears noticed above. (3). Respondents No.3 &4, namely, the College and the Management have filed their reply/affidavit broadly admitting the facts noticed above and have maintained that due to non-release of 95% Grant-in- CWP No.19943 of 2009.doc - 3 – Aid by the State Government that the subject arrears could not be paid to the petitioners. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. (5). In my considered view, once the State Government has taken a conscious decision to revise the pay- scales of College teachers like the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1996, they are also entitled to the consequential benefits flowing therefrom save a lawful embargo. It is an admitted fact that the Lecturers working in the Government Colleges have already been paid such arrears. The teachers serving in the Government-Aided Privately-Managed Colleges too are entitled to seek parity in this regard in terms of the Government Notification cited above. Otherwise also, the controversy is no longer res integra as this Court has already issued similar directions in various cases including vide order dated 02.04.2008 passed in CWP No.15532 of 2007 (Dr. Poonam Kumar Sharma and others vs. The State of Punjab and others) (Annexure P6). (6). For the afore-stated reasons and those cited in Dr. Poonam Kumar Sharma’s case (supra), the writ petitions are allowed and the State of Punjab is directed to release the Grant-in-Aid towards the CWP No.19943 of 2009.doc - 4 – arrears referred to above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The College(s) shall disburse the arrears to the petitioners along with the Management’s contribution as soon as the Grant-in-Aid is received from the Government. The needful shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 17.08.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE