RAJINDER KUMAR MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 30, 1975, the petitioner represented to the School that he is an ex-serviceman and a Matriculate. He requested for appointment as a Physical Training Instructor. On May 1,1975, the School appointed him subject to the condition that he must produce the Matriculation certificate. In spite of repeated communications during the last two decades, the petitioner has not produced the certificate. In this situation, the School has not given the petitioner the benefit of the revised scale of pay and allowances. Consequently, the petitioner has filed this petition. He complains that the action of the Respondent-School in not giving him the benefits of the revised scale of pay, dearness allowance house rent allowance, City compensatory allowance and Provident fund etc. w.e.f. the date of the completion of the period of probation, is illegal and arbitrary, Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of a Physical Training instructor to the Principal of Mukand Lai National Senior Secondary School, Yamuna Nagar. He submitted that he was an ex-serviceman and was a Matriculate. Vide order dated May 1, 1975, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P-l with the writ petition. The petitioner was offered appointment as a Physical Training Instructor in the pay scale of Rs.120-5- 250 with usual allowances. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. In this order, it was categorically stipulated that before assuming the charge of his post, the petitioner will be required to produce inter alia the attested copy of the Matriculation Certificate. In spite of the fact that the petitioner did not produce the certificate, he was allowed to join duty. On the revision of pay scales, the petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs.480-760. On May 1,1990, the pay scale was further revised to Rs.1200-2400 with effect from January 1, 1986. The petitioner states that "arrears on account of revision of pay scales as also on account of Additional Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowance, city compensatory Allowance .... as were given to the other similarly situated Physical Training Instructors working in the Respondent-School" have not been given to him. Vide letter dated July 15,1993, the petitioner was asked to submit proof of his educational qualification failing which his appointment was liable to be treated as irregular. He was asked to even show if he was eighth class pass so that the approval regarding his appointment could be obtained from the Education Department. Vide letter dated August 14, 1993, he was directed to submit the proof so as to enable the School, to claim grant regarding the post of Physical Training Instructor held by him from the Department. The petitioner submits that "although qualifications prescribed for a post are no doubt a factor to be reckoned with at the time of initial entry into service but once the appointment is made and the appointee allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be harsh and hard to deny him the benefits of the post by alleging that the employee does not fulfil the requisite qualifications." He further submits that "the question of obtaining grant is the responsibility of the employer. The petitioner is entitled to all the benefits sought by him in view of the terms and conditions of appointment as also the provisions of the Act and Rules". Vide letter dated August 31, 1993, the petitioner informed the Respondent-School that his educational qualifications were "Indian Army Certificate Class II in Hindi, English and his Army Trade/Class was D-II (M.P.) with 15 years military service and that the same h; 1 been recognised by the Haryana Govt, as equivalent to be middle i.e. 8th class vide letter No.47/25/80-Edu 111(5) dt. 27.3.1985". According to the petitioner, he had completed the period of probation satisfactorily on May 1, 1977. Consequently, it was incumbent on the School as also the District Education Officer to start deduction for the Contributory Provident Fund. However, the deduction was started only with effect from the year 1991. He further states that 97% Dearness Allowance had been released and paid to the teachers working in aided schools. However, "the petitioner has only been paid 51% Dearness Allowance i.e. uptil 1.7.1991 'and thereafter the remaining instalments of Dearness Allowance as have been paid to other employees working in the respondent school" have not been paid to him. The petitioner alleged that "no opportunity of hearing was given" before with- holding the payment of enhanced Dearness Allowance instalments as released from time to time. Aggrieved by these actions of the School, the petitioner served a notice on September 29, 1993. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition. The School sent its reply vide letter dated December 16,1993, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-10 with the writ petition. It rejected the petitioner's claim. Consequently, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner prays that the letter dated December 16, 1993, a copy of which is at Annexure P-10 with the writ petition, be quashed and the respondents be directed to pay the arrears "on account of revision of pay scales, Additional Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance etc...." with interest at the rate of 24%.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. A written statement on behalf of the official respondents has been filed by the District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar. It has been averred that the petitioner was appointed by the Respondent- School against the "unsanctioned post". He was paid salary by the School "from their own resources and no grant-in-aid for the person appointed against unsanctioned post is admissible". Reference has been made to Article 67 of the Haryana Education Code which inter alia provides that "the grant will be admissible only against those members of the staff who are trained and appointed against the posts which are sanctioned by the department". By referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.908 of 1993 (Ajai Kumar Saxena and others versus state of Haryana), it has been stated that the Education Department is under no liability to pay anything to persons appointed against unsanctioned posts without its approval.