SURESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order of mine, two writ petitions i.e. CWP No.25942 of 2012 and CWP No.11669 of 2015, which involve the same question of law and similar facts, are being decided. For the purpose of this order, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.25942 of 2012. In the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is for the release of the pensionary benefits as well as the balance payment of leave encashment and also for the arrears of pay scale as a result of the revision which took place w.e.f. 1/1/2006. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is against respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent No.4 is the President of the Managing Committee, which is managing respondent No.5-College. Respondent No.5 is a private aided college being managed by respondent No.4. Before counsel for the petitioner starts his arguments on merits, a preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition at the first instance before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the private aided college have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition at the first instance before this Court. An objection has been taken that as the claim of the petitioner is primarily against the management of private aided institution, hence petitioner has to approach the Educational Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance at the first instance and present petition could not have been filed by him seeking the relief as sought in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the objection raised by counsel for the private aided institution has no merit and the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of his arguments about the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provisions of Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Act') as amended from time to time.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though 'the 1974 Act, was enacted for the security of service of the employees of the affiliated colleges but the same was only applicable wherein an employee has been either dismissed from service, removed from service or his/her rank is reduced. Employee seeking the payment of the retiral benefits or any other benefits except the three category of cases mentioned above, the jurisdiction of Tribunal is barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the College Tribunal has been created under Sec. 2(c) of the Act, 1974. Sec. 2 (c) is as under:- "(c) "College Tribunal" means a College Tribunal constituted under Sec. 7-A of this Act."