MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Release of pension and other retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner, who admittedly has retired from the service of respondent No. 4, is the main prayer of the present writ petitioner. He has also prayed that interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum be allowed on the amount due to him. Also it is to be seen whether respondent No. 2 can direct refixation of the salary of the petitioner after more than 20 years, when the petitioner has even retired from service, particularly when the salary of the petitioner was fixed after due approval of the Director Public Instructions (Schools) (for short 'the DPI'), as required under the rules.

(2.) Petitioner Manmohan Singh joined service as a Science Teacher in Sargodha Khalsa High School, Ludhiana, (respondent No. 4) on 10.1.1958. This School is a privately managed recognised school and is getting grant-in-aid from the State Government under the Delhi Pattern Grant-in-aid Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') providing for grant-in-aid to the privately managed schools. The Scheme was introduced in Punjab by the Education Department with effect from 1.12.1967. Thereafter the service record of the teachers was scrutinised and verified by the Education Department. The petitioner alleges that he was promoted as Headmaster on 19.8.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600, and this promotion was duly approved for the purpose of grant-in-aid by the DPI vide office order dated 28.2.1977 (P1). At the time of promotion, the petitioner was drawing basic salary of Rs. 292/- and his next increment was due on 1.10.1976 and he was to get the basic pay of Rs. 300/- with effect from that date. As per notes 1 and 8 of Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules the petitioner was entitled to get one increment on promotion. The school management agreed to defer the promotion of the petitioner and making it effective with effect from 3.10.1976 in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 and his Basic Pay on the date of promotion was fixed at Rs. 325/- with effect from that date because the petitioner started drawing Basic Pay of Rs. 300/- as on 1.10.1976. The case of the petitioner was sent for approval for promotion with effect from 3.10.1976 instead of 19.8.1976 and the DPI granted the necessary approval for promotion as Headmaster with effect from 3.10.1976 for the purpose of giving grant-in-aid vide office order dated 28.1.1982. Consequently, the salary of the petitioner on the promoted post of Headmaster was fixed at Rs. 325/- with effect from 3.10.1976 and necessary approval in this regard was granted by the DPI vide Annexure P3. The pay scale of the teachers working in the Government as well as privately managed recognised schools was revised with effect from 1.1.1978. The salary of the petitioner was fixed in the revised pay scale and was verified by the District Education Officer and a certificate was also given in the service book of the petitioner. The pay scale was further revised with effect from 1.1.1986 and the salary of the petitioner was again fixed in the revised pay scale by making an entry in the service book duly verified by the District Education Officer. The petitioner retired from service on 3.5.1991.

(3.) The State Government introduced pension scheme to the employees of the privately managed recognised schools under the title Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992 (for short 'the Pension Scheme') and it was applicable to all the employees who were in service as on 5.2.1987 and all the employees of such schools became entitled to the pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner retired on 3.5.1991, i.e., subsequent to 5.2.1987, he also became entitled to the retirement benefits, such as pension, gratuity etc. The school management prepared the pension case of the petitioner and it was sent to the District Education Officer for the release of pension and other terminal benefits. However, the case was returned with objections. The objections were removed. The District Education Officer then forwarded the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and other retirement benefits to the office of the DPI. The case was returned by the latter, stating that the pay of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed from the date of promotion as Headmaster and as such the entries in the service book are required to be changed and the amount allegedly due to the Department was required to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the order of the DPI ordering refixing of the salary of the petitioner from the date of his promotion till retirement is wholly arbitrary, unconstitutional, mala fide and unreasonable. The copy of the order is Annexure P 6 on the record. The school management replied to the objections raised by the DPI and clarified that the salary of the petitioner had been rightly fixed at Rs. 325/- with effect from 3.10.1976 with the approval of the office of the DPI and cannot be now changed after a lapse of 20 years. However, the DPI again returned the pension case of the petitioner to District Education Officer, stating that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed upwards in his promotion as Headmaster. It was further stated that more than due increments were granted before 1.12.1967 and that the record of the case should be produced. These orders were passed in Annexure P9. The position was again explained by the District Education Officer by returning the pension papers to the DPI and it was explained that it would not be proper to reduce the salary of the petitioner after more than 20 years, specially when the petitioner has retired from service. In spite of all this, nothing yielded for the petitioner, who served a legal notice (P11) on 8.5.1995. The impugned orders (Annexure P6 and P9) dated 25.10.1994 and 31.3.1994, respectively, have been challenged mainly on the ground that it is not open now for the respondents to reopen the case after such a long time, when the Department itself had verified the salary of the petitioner. Annexures P6 and P9 are also visited with vices as they were passed at the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. On account of the passing of the orders Annexures P6 and P9 the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have also been withheld in an illegal manner and under these circumstances the action on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Finally it was prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued for the quashing of the orders dated 25.10.1994 and 31.3.1994, Annexures P6 and P9, respectively. Further prayer was made for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with interest, as stated above.