SATISH KUMAR DUGGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are working as Lecturers and Librarians in G.G.S. Khalsa College, Sarhali, District Amritsar have prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to pay them rural area allowance in terms of the instructions and policy decision of the State Government at the rates at which the employees of Government Colleges are being paid. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 is getting 95 per cent grants in aid to meet the deficit on account of pay and allowances to the teachers and allied staff. The Punjab Government issued a letter dated 19.1.1994 directing the payment of house rent to the employees of the recognised and affiliated privately managed colleges in the State of Punjab at the rates admissible to the Punjab Govt. employees. On the basis of the recommendation of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission, the Government sanctioned rural area allowance to the employees posted in the rural areas at the rates ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 250/- per month depending upon the pay range in the revised pay scales vide its letter dated 30.8.1988. The petitioners submit that respondents cannot discriminate and are liable to pay the house rent to them also as is being paid to the government employees.

(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that as the government is paying grant in aid upto 95 per cent to respondent No. 3, they are not obliged to pay the allowances claimed by the petitioners. The rural area allowance if required to be paid is stated to be the liability of respondent No. 3. The other averments made in the petition have not specifically been denied.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana, 1988 AIR(SC) 1663 The Kurukshetra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra v. Addl. Registrar (Stores), Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh,1992 3 SCT 632, and Radha Krishan etc. v. State of Haryana etc., Civil Writ Petition No. 1865 of 1991 decided on 15.5.1992 and C.W.P. No. 12866 of 1991 decided on 4.2.1992 by this court, to submit that similarly situated persons as the petitioners have already been granted the relief and the respondents are not justified in refusing the grant the relief to the petitioners now on the pleas raised in the written statement.