DHARAMVIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Deharvmvir son of Shri Om Parkash, a retired clerk of Dev Samaj College for Girls, Ambala City, has filed the present writ petition against the State of Haryana, Kurukshetra University. Governing Body, Dev Samaj College for Girls, through its Secretary and Dev Samaj College for Girls through its Principal, Ambala City and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 44,279/- as balance towards gratuity and a sum of Rs. 52,556/- as balance towards leave encashment along with 18% interest per annum as the petitioner is entitled to the same according to he Rules and Regulations as applicable to the employees of the affiliated colleges in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has further made a prayer for quashing Annexure P-10 the reply given by the respondents No. 3 and 4 to the petitioner rejecting his claim. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as a regular peon against a vacant post on 3.8.1978. Respondent No. 4 started paying the monthly fixed salary of Rs. 150/- as against Rs. 750-12-870-EB-14-940 meant for Class IV employees working in the Non-Government Affiliated Colleges. The petitioner was getting a fixed salary of Rs. 1100/- per month on the basis of the post of a Peon in the year 1991. When he was promoted as Clerk against a vacant post he was entitled to a scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-235-1500 on the post of Clerk whereas the petitioner had been kept on fixed salary. The petitioner was getting Rs. 1275/- as basic pay along with 110% dearness allowance which came to Rs. 2550/- per month. The grouse of the petitioner is that though he was entitled to the scale but he was given fixed salary. He earlier filed a civil writ petition in the High Court for the grant of regular pay scale, house rent etc. and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.9.1998 and directions were given by the Division Bench to decide the representation of the petitioner.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is a college affiliated with the Kurukshtra University and as per the Rule 3 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979 he was entitled to the prescribed pay scale along with Dearness allowance on such rates as are applicable to the Government institutions. Though some payment has been made to the petitioner but still certain amount has been highlighted in the earlier portion of the judgment which is due to the petitioner and, therefore, directions should be given to the respondents for the release of the said amount along with interest. The petitioner has also calculated this amount in para No. 15 of the writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No. 3 and 4 filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to these respondents, respondent No. 4 is a privately managed educational institution and is not receiving any grant either form the Government or from the University. Thus, it is not a State or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the disputed question of fact is involved in this case and, therefore, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands as he has received the full payment and had given a certificate that nothing remained due from the college. The petitioner has already relinquished his rights and now he had filed the writ petition after a period of 10 months. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner remained absent from duty he applied for long leave which were sanctioned in spite of that the petitioner did not join the duty. The act of the petitioner amounted to the abandonment of the duty. The petitioner was doing a private business at Chandigarh as his wife was working at Chandigarh. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with the direction to decide the legal notice of the petitioner. The college applied its mind and whatever was due to the petitioner was given. He had received the amount by making an endorsement in the receipt that he had received the full payment and nothing was due to him against the college.