CWP No.16789 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16789 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: April 27, 2011 KULDIP KAUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. R.K. MALIK, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. RENU, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is to quash the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education rejecting the plea by the Teacher who was working in Sanatan Dharam Bal Mandir, Karnal that she had not been paid the salary as per the Government scales although the school was receiving grant from the State and that she was entitled to secure the salary as per the scales provided by the Government. The impugned letter of the Director, Schools itself is cryptic which states that she could not be given “Equivalent Grade Certificate”. It appears that the petitioner had been granted merely a lump- sum payment since the audit of the accounts of the Kothari Grant sanctioned to the school showed that Kuldip Kaur was appointed w.e.f. 5.2.1983, but she did not possess the prescribed qualification and that she had passed JBT from Maharashtra which was not recognized after September, 1981. CWP No.16789 of 1989 -2- 2. It is not in denial that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in school that obtained 95% aid from the Government. If the audit party had refused to release of a grant to a Teacher as per the Government scales, it was on the ground that her qualification was not sufficient and the JBT qualification obtained from Maharashtra was alleged by not entitled to be considered as valid. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the fact that the Director of School Education, Haryana had, in his proceedings dated 21.7.1984, regarding qualification of Teachers for making ad hoc appointment clarified that Teachers who had been terminated in obedience of instructions already issued relating to qualification would obtain re-appointment and cases of such persons whose qualification were required to be recognized would have to be sent to the Directorate for grant of Equivalent Grade Certificate. The said communication lists in S.No.8, the qualification obtained from Maharashtra State Education Department as eligible for an Equivalent Grade Certificate. This could be noticed as applicable only in situations where the qualification was obtained after 3.11.1983, requiring such Equivalent Grade Certificate. Learned counsel points out that the JBT qualification has been obtained in this case from Maharashtra even in the years 1969-71 and therefore, even this requirement as prescribed in the letter would not be applied. 3. After hearing the arguments at the previous hearing on 25.3.2011, I had directed the State Government to give an affidavit on a contention raised for the first time in the reply to the writ petition that the petitioner was working on a non-sanctioned post and, therefore, she was not eligible for being granted the Government scales and for release of grant CWP No.16789 of 1989 -3- given by the Government. Learned counsel took time to file such an affidavit and it was posted for today. Counsel for the State has not filed the affidavit today and he seeks for further time. I do not find that any more indulgence is needed, for I was merely trying to require a substantiation to what was stated in the written statement that the petitioner was not in a sanctioned post. I must point out that even if at the time when the Director was declining to issue the Equivalent Grade Certificate, it was not stated that the petitioner was not on a sanctioned post. It must also be noticed that even the objection from the audit party was only on the basis that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification and if it were ever to be that the petitioner was occupying a non-sanctioned post, it must have been referred to in the audit report itself. I find no merit in the contention in the written statement that the petitioner was not in a sanctioned post. 4. The petitioner had the requisite qualification and the petitioner had also worked as Teacher in an aided school. She was bound to be paid the salary applicable for the post. The primary liability to pay the salary shall be on the Principal as master irrespective of whether the school obtained the grant or not. This comes through a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs. V.R. Rudani and others, reported as AIR 1989 SC 1607. In the present case, the school was securing the grant from the Government for payment of salary to the Teachers. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the computation of the salary on the scale of pay applicable to the petitioner in same way as any other Teacher in the school was drawing on a sanctioned post and pay to her the difference of amount after deducting the lump-sum CWP No.16789 of 1989 -4- payment which was being paid to the petitioner. I am informed that the petitioner has been also superannuated and the petitioner shalll also be entitled to the computation of terminal benefits and all other benefits attached to the said post. The computation shall be made within 12 weeks and paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks. 5. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. April 27, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE