SATYA BHALLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a person, who is senior in the Haryana Education Service Class I be denied a pay scale which has been granted to a junior only on the ground that the said junior has put in longer years to total service? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Education Service on December 8,1960. She was initially appointed in the school cadre. While working as such, she was selected for direct recruitment as a Lecturer. She joined as such on December 23,1970. She competed for direct recruitment to the post of Principal. The Haryana Public Service Commission selected her. She was appointed as Principal on May 22,1982. On March 31, 1990, the petitioner retired after having put in more than 29 years of service. The petitioner rightly claims to be highly qualified. She possesses the qualifications of LLB., MA (Hindi) MA (History) M.Ed. and Ph. D. in History.

(3.) In pursuance to the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the State of Haryana Issued instructions vide letter dated February 24, 1988, inter alias providing for the revision of pay scales of the posts of principals. It was decided to grant 'professor's grade of Rs. 4500-7300 to the Principals of Govt, and non govt, colleges, who have put in a total service of 25 years, with effect from 1.1.1986......" Apprehending that persons who had been appointed as Principals after her but had completed 25 years of service earlier than her would be granted the higher pay scale which may not be given to her, the petitioner submitted a representation on august 16, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as annexure P-5 with the writ petition. This was followed by another representation which was forwarded by the Chandigarh Administration (where she was on deputation) to the Director of Higher Education, Haryana vide letter dated February 2,1989. A copy of the letter alongwith the representation has been produced as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition. The grievance made by the petitioner in these representations was not redressed by the department, However, some of the petitioner's colleagues approached this Court tlirough CWP No. 2912 of 1989 (B.R. Vashist etc. vs. State of Haryana) This writ petition was decided on Jan. 11,1991. The State of Haryana was directed to examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the factual and legal position stated in the representation submitted by the petitioners within two months from the date of the receipt of the order. In pursuance to these directions, the matter was decided by the Financial Commissioner (Education) vide orders dated July 26,1991. It was held that the claim made by the 'petitioners was not tenable and that the condition of 25 years imposed by the State Government was valid, as a result, the representations were rejected. Undaunted, the petitioner submitted another representation in December 1991. A copy of this representation is Annexure P8 with the writ petition. Having failed to get any response from the respondent, she has approached this court tlirough the present writ petition. The petitioner claims that the decision of the Government to grant Professor's grade to only such Principals as had completed 25 years of service and to deny it to others, who are senior in the service is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.