State of Punjab and Another Vs. Satish Kumar Duggal and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20433 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20433 of 1996)
Petitioner: State of Punjab and Another
Respondent: Satish Kumar Duggal and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1705 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20433 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20433 of 1996)
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 24, 1997
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Parity in the matter of allowances – Teaching staff of aided non Government colleges in Punjab getting house rent allowance on par with teaching staff of Government colleges under specific orders of State Government – Rural area allowance also paid to Govern-ment college staff – Claim made by non government college staff for rural area allowance – Whether claim allowable. Held the mere fact they were paid house rent allowance on par with government colleges that would not entitle them to claim rural area allow-ance also.
Parity in the matter of allowances – Teaching staff of aided non Government colleges in Punjab getting house rent allowance on par with teaching staff of Government colleges under specific orders of State Government – Rural area allowance also paid to Govern-ment college staff – Claim made by non government college staff for rural area allowance – Whether claim allowable. Held the mere fact they were paid house rent allowance on par with government colleges that would not entitle them to claim rural area allow-ance also.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal 1996 AIR (SC) 2584
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 16-5-1994 allowing the writ petition (CWP No. 3510 of 1993) filed by the respondents. The respondents are employed as Lecturers and Librarians in Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Sarhali, District Amritsar. In the writ petition they claimed that they are entitled to payment of Rural Area allowance which is payable to the Lecturers in the government colleges on the basis of the parity in the pay scale. The said claim of the respondents has been accepted by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal 1996 AIR (SC) 2584. In that case this Court has construed the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and has laid down that under the said section in the matter of pay scales and dearness allowance parity has been granted to teachers working in the privately managed schools with the teachers working in the gov-ernment schools and that other conditions of services relating to the teachers working in the government schools were not extended to teachers employed in privately managed schools. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondents
have been given parity in the matter of pay scales and dearness allowance. The respondents are claiming parity also in the matter of other allowances, viz., Rural Area Allowance, which has not been ex-tended to them. In view of the said decision the respondents cannot claim parity in the matter of Rural Area Allowance.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the communication dated 28-3-1989 from the Director of Public Instruction (C), Punjab, to the Principals of aided non-government colleges in the State whereunder the Lecturers in aided non-government colleges are entitled to payment of House Rent Allowance on the same basis as Lecturers in government colleges. The submission is that Rural Area Allowance is akin to House Rent Allowance in the sense that the said allowance is payable when the posting is in a rural area while House Rent Allowance is payable when the posting is in any city. We are unable to agree with the said submission. The question is whether the respondents can claim a benefit, viz., Rural Area Allowance, on the ground that such benefit has been extended to the Lectur-ers of government aided private colleges. Merely because House Rent Allowance is being paid to the respondents does not ipso facto entitle them to payment of Rural Area Allowance. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. But in the cir-cumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 16-5-1994 allowing the writ petition (CWP No. 3510 of 1993) filed by the respondents. The respondents are employed as Lecturers and Librarians in Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Sarhali, District Amritsar. In the writ petition they claimed that they are entitled to payment of Rural Area allowance which is payable to the Lecturers in the government colleges on the basis of the parity in the pay scale. The said claim of the respondents has been accepted by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Om Prakash Kaushal 1996 AIR (SC) 2584. In that case this Court has construed the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and has laid down that under the said section in the matter of pay scales and dearness allowance parity has been granted to teachers working in the privately managed schools with the teachers working in the gov-ernment schools and that other conditions of services relating to the teachers working in the government schools were not extended to teachers employed in privately managed schools. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondents
have been given parity in the matter of pay scales and dearness allowance. The respondents are claiming parity also in the matter of other allowances, viz., Rural Area Allowance, which has not been ex-tended to them. In view of the said decision the respondents cannot claim parity in the matter of Rural Area Allowance.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the communication dated 28-3-1989 from the Director of Public Instruction (C), Punjab, to the Principals of aided non-government colleges in the State whereunder the Lecturers in aided non-government colleges are entitled to payment of House Rent Allowance on the same basis as Lecturers in government colleges. The submission is that Rural Area Allowance is akin to House Rent Allowance in the sense that the said allowance is payable when the posting is in a rural area while House Rent Allowance is payable when the posting is in any city. We are unable to agree with the said submission. The question is whether the respondents can claim a benefit, viz., Rural Area Allowance, on the ground that such benefit has been extended to the Lectur-ers of government aided private colleges. Merely because House Rent Allowance is being paid to the respondents does not ipso facto entitle them to payment of Rural Area Allowance. In these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. But in the cir-cumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
