Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Managing Committee Of As High School ... vs The Educational Tribunal Punjab And Ors on 9 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118038
CWP-37400-2019 & connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(238) CWP-37400-2019
Date of Decision : September 09, 2024
The Managing Committee of A.S. High School Khanna Trust and
Management Society and another
.. Petitioners
Versus
The Educational Tribunal, Punjab and others .. Respondents
(2) CWP-37377-2019
The Managing Committee of A.S. High School Khanna Trust and
Management Society and another
.. Petitioners
Versus
The Educational Tribunal, Punjab and others .. Respondents
(3) CWP-37427-2019
The Managing Committee of A.S. High School Khanna Trust and
Management Society and another
.. Petitioners
Versus
The Educational Tribunal, Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Charan Preet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 20:20:55 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118038
CWP-37400-2019 & connected cases 2
Mr. Rohit Dheer, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. B.K. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all these petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present writ petitions, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner-Institute is that the order passed by the Educational Tribunal,
Punjab granting the respondent-employees the benefit of salary as per their
appointment order, is not correct and the said order passed by the
Educational Tribunal, Punjab is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
respondent-employees were appointed on contractual basis but in the
appointment order, they were to be given regular pay scale of Rs.15,600-
39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.6000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
respondent-employees continued working but they were never paid the said
pay scale till they rendered resignation and after tendering the resignation,
the present proceedings were initiated by the respondent-employees before
the Educational Tribunal, Punjab so as to get the salary in terms of their
appointment order and without appreciating all the facts that once the
employee has resigned, he will lose all the earlier benefits, the direction has
been given to grant the salary in terms of the appointment order for the
period the respondent-employee(s) has worked.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118038
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
Tribunal has ignored the settled principle of law on the issue settled by this
Court in CWP No.16867 of 1989 titled as Canara Bank Circle Office,
Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chandigarh, decided on 10.09.1993 as well as the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1892 of
2015 titled as State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Hitkishore
Goswami, decided on 16.02.2015.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee(s) submits that
once, as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the
respondent-employee(s) were to be paid the regular salary along with grade
pay and the respondents concededly have not been paid the said salary, the
respondent-employee(s) were very much entitled for the salary as per the
terms and conditions of the appointment and the Tribunal has only allowed
the same and therefore, the order passed by the Educational Tribunal,
Punjab is liable to be upheld.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. It is not disputed that the respondent-employee(s) were
appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100 along with Grade Pay
of Rs.6000/- though, it was mentioned that the same is contractual. Once,
the Institute itself had appointed the respondent-employee(s) in a regular
pay scale, merely that the appointment was termed contractual, does not
mean that the respondent-employee(s) will not be entitled for the pay, in the
pay scale as per the terms and conditions of the appointment. The terms and
conditions of the appointment will be binding on both the parties and
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118038
therefore, once the petitioner-Institute itself chose to appoint respondent-
employee(s) in a particular pay scale even while granting contractual
appointment, the denial of the regular pay scale has rightly been enforced
by the Tribunal in favour of respondent-employee(s) so as to pay them the
salary which they are entitled for in terms of the appointment order so as to
mitigate their financial hardship.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
resignation will take away all the rights, will not amount to the service
which an employee has already rendered for claiming the salary of the
same. The service can be taken off for other purposes but not with regard
to the payment of the salary for the period in question. Once the
respondent-employee(s) have actually rendered service with the petitioners,
the resignation thereafter will not take away their right to claim the entitled
salary for the period they have discharged the duties in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the appointment order, which have only been
enforced by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab vide impugned order.
10. With regard to the law being relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, it may be noticed that the Canara Bank Circle Office'
case (supra), the dispute was with regard to the resignation given by an
employee. The employee was claiming the withdrawal of the resignation
whereas, the employer contended that the employee has resigned and
therefore, after the resignation, the employee will not be entitled for any
salary whereas, in the present case, the salary being claimed is for the period
prior to the resignation when concededly the services had been rendered by
the respondent-employee(s) hence, the said judgment will not be applicable
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:118038
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. With regard to the judgment in Hitkishore Goswami's case
(supra), the claim of the employee was that after his resignation, the pay
scale of the post, had been enhanced and therefore, he should be given the
benefit of enhanced pay scale which was declined on the ground that the
employee had already resigned prior to the enhancement of the pay scale
whereas, the facts in the present case are entirely different and are not
covered by the judgment in Hitkishore Goswami's case (supra), as the
respondent-employee(s) are only claiming the benefit of salary for the
period the employee(s) have discharged the duties and that too in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order.
12. No other argument was raised.
13. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
September 09, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
