RIPUDAMAN SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 26.7.1993, Annexure P-9 and 11.11.1993, Annexure P-11, passed by respondents 3 and 2 respectively.

(2.) Petitioners are working as Nursery Teachers in Shivalik Model School, Naya Nangal. The affairs of the school are managed by a Managing Committee headed by its Chairman who is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib. The school is further controlled and financed by the Notified Area Committee (for short 'the Committee'). In pursuance of an advertisement appearing in the newspaper in the year 1987, inviting applications for two posts of Nursery Teachers from the candidates who are Graduates and possess diploma in Nursery Training, the petitioners applied for the said posts. In the column of qualifications appearing in the advertisement, Annexure P-1, it was further mentioned that the candidates possessing the qualification of B.Ed. will be preferred. The petitioners were selected and accordingly appointed as Nursery Teachers vide appointment letters dated 31.8.1987. They were initially paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/- per month as per the terms and conditions contained in their appointment letters. After completion of one year service, the petitioners were appointed on regular basis as Nursery Teachers by the Committee in the pay scale of Rs. 620-1200 w.e.f. 1.9.1988. After completion of probation period, the petitioners were confirmed by the School Managing Committee in the year 1991, w.e.f. 1.9.1990 as such in the above pay scale which was later on revised from Rs. 620-1200 to Rs. 1640-2925 from the date of their initial appointment as Nursery Teachers. However, during the course of audit, the Audit Department of the State Government raised an objection qua petitioner-2 to the effect that she was only a Matriculate with JBT and was thus not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925. The Audit Department further raised an objection that petitioner-1 was also not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 as she did not possess the qualification of Punjabi upto Matric standard. The objections raised by the Audit Department came to be considered by Managing Committee of the School and ultimately the School Managing Committee did not agree to the objections and passed a resolution that no revision or deduction was called for in the pay scale of the petitioners. The petitioners apprehending that their pay scale may not be reduced made a joint representation, Annexure P-8 on which the Director, Local Government, Punjab Chandigarh without getting any explanation from the petitioners and without affording any opportunity of being heard to them conveyed its decision to the Committee and the Committee implemented the said decision by order dated 26.7.1993, Annexure P-9 whereby the pay scale of the petitioners was reduced from Rs. 1640-2925 to Rs. 1200-2100. The petitioners still made another representation, this time, against the order Annexure P-9 and the said representation was also declined by respondent-2 by its order dated 11.11.1993, Annexure P-11. This is how the petitioners have impugned the orders Annexures P-9 and P-11.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. However, respondents 3 to 5 filed a joint written statement. A preliminary objection was raised in the written statement that the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable especially when it raises disputed questions of fact. A further preliminary objection was taken that Shivalik Model School was being run by the Notified Area Committee which was subject to the control of the Director, Local Government Department, Punjab in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and it has been giving pay scales to the teachers of the School on the Punjab pattern and both the petitioners at the time of their recruitment were only Matriculates with one year course in Nursery Training. On merits, it is submitted that the pay scale of Rs. 620-1200 was wrongly given to the petitioners and that the School Managing Committee wrongly insisted for giving revised scale of Rs. 1640-2925 whereas the petitioners were only entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100. It is further averred that even the acquisition of B.Ed. qualification after the appointment did not alter the situation unless and until the petitioners were selected and posted against the posts of Mistresses.