AMARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for quashing the proceedings of the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) and the subsequent order issued by the 3rd respondent- the Principal Sikh National College, observing that the services of the petitioner as a Librarian in the College would be reckoned only from 15.10.1982 which, according to the 2nd respondent, was the date when the petitioner was regularized. These orders are impugned in the writ petition by the petitioner on a plea that she had been appointed as a Librarian in Guru Nanak Khalsa College in the scale of 300-600 on 05.09.1975 (Annexure P-1) and appointment was also approved by the University by its letter dated 15.12.1975 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was also confirmed in that post as a Librarian by order dated 05.09.1976 issued by the Guru Nanak Khalsa College (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was issued with an office order of the 3rd respondent-Sikh National College, stating that she had been appointed as a Librarian against a leave vacancy on deputation and her pay was fixed on the basis of the last drawn salary at the Khalsa College. The issue relating to pay protection was provisional and the office order stated that the permission of the DPI (Colleges) would have to be obtained. The Director of Public Instructions issued a memo No.115-11/34-80-Grant 1 (5), dated 11.03.1981 approving the appointment of a Librarian against the leave vacancy and the deputation was also approved. The 3rd respondent has made pointed reference to the order dated 12.03.1981 in a communication sent to the Director that the petitioner had been working previously in Guru Nanak College on regular basis and that she was taken in service by the 3rd respondent- College w.e.f. 20.11.1980 and transfer and appointment on deputation had also been approved by the communication referred to above.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner therefore is that when the petitioner had a continuous service without any form of break and when she had been appointed by the 3rd respondent on 14.11.1980 awaiting further permission from the DPI, and when such permission was also granted on 12.03.1981, the 2nd respondent could have no basis for reckoning the service from 15.10.1982. The scale of pay would have to be worked only on the basis of her regular appointment at the Guru Nanak Khalsa College and the actual pay that she drew at the time when she joined the 3rd respondent-College.

(3.) In response to the petitioner's contention, the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner had actually resigned the service at the Guru Nanak College against the post vacated as a result of resignation of an incumbent in the Sikh National College on 15.10.1982. The scale had to be therefore worked only from the date of the so-called appointment on 15.10.1982. The same reference was also made elsewhere in the statement where it was contended that the petitioner's pay was fixed w.e.f. 15.10.1982 on the basis of her regular appointment in the existing institution after resigning from the previous College on 14.10.1982.